Jump to content


Photo

Questions For Any Creationist/young Earther.

creationism young earth

  • Please log in to reply
358 replies to this topic

#41 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,738 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 07 July 2014 - 01:57 AM

There is no event horizon problem when we observe the center of the Milky Way (over 20,000 light years from Earth) .... but YEC has a problem.  There is no event horizon problem when we look at Sn1987a (over 167,000 light years from Earth .... but YEC has a problem.  There is no event horizon problem when we  observe Andromeda (2.4 million light years from Earth) .... but YEC has a problem.  There is no event horizon problem when we see NGC4651 (62,000,000 light years away) .... but YEC has a problem.  There is no event horizon problem when we see the Hercules cluster at a distance of 500,000,000 light years .... but YEC has a problem.

 

It is NOT a wash.

 

You don't really understand what you're talking about here and copy/pasting Wiki doesn't make you look like you do.

I use Wiki mainly because it's broad based, (usually) easily understood, and normally comes up on top of the search.  If you like, I'll begin citing primary literature, as I did in my answer to FC. 

 

Wouldn't it be better to demonstrate I "don't really understand what (I'm) talking about here" than to simply make an unsupported assertion? 

 

Here's a suggestion....   

I provided a list of objects that we can see but shouldn't be able to in a 6,000 year old universe.  They range in distance from 20,000 to 500,000,000 light years.  I have claimed the "horizon problem" isn't a problem at all for our ability to see them and that each of them is a problem for YEC.  Simply pick any of those objects and show what I said is wrong and why. 

 

Keep in mind these objects range out to nearly 100,000 times as far as we should be able to see in your 6,000 year old universe ..... and there is no "horizon problem" associated with any of them.  Yet you seem to think the issue is a "wash."

 

 

You also don't understand the creation model for the time/light problem

Another unsupported assertion.  Which creation model do I not understand?

 

 

 so trying to compare what is and isn't an issue is just flat out dishonest on your part.  

Now a claim of dishonesty on my part.  Do you have anything substantive to offer or do you specialize in unsupported accusations and ad hominems?

 

 

 What you're basically trying to argue is "We think we have solved a couple of things so we win and you lose." 

Not at all.  I'm arguing that whetever problems any other model may have, YEC loses because we can see things beyond a 6,000 year old event horizon.  Whatever the creative event took place, the astronomical evidence is it happened billions of years ago, not thousands.

 

 

You want to impress me with your horizon problem knowledge? Explain to me how something moved faster than the speed of light at the moment of the BB.That would be cool. 

What makes you think I'm trying to impress you with my knowledge of an issue that isn't even relevant to my claims?  Why do you think a problem another model has 13.8 billion years ago solves the problem YEC has only 6,000 years ago? 



#42 EQuestions

EQuestions

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 222 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • North America

Posted 07 July 2014 - 07:10 AM

 

 

Another unsupported assertion.  Which creation model do I not understand?

 

Have you read the books Starlight and Time by Russell Humphreys or Starlight, Time and the new Physics by John Hartnett? You haven't? You mean you really don't know or understand the creation side of this argument? Then my assertion wasn't unsupported. It was the truth. These explain some of the creation models for the YEC starlight problem. 

 

 

 

What makes you think I'm trying to impress you with my knowledge of an issue that isn't even relevant to my claims? 

 

Now this REALLY shows you do't know what you're talking about. You obviously don't understand the horizon problem or how inflation has tried to fix it.

 

Listen pia. Copy/pasting Wiki doesn't actually mean you're educated in a particular topic. You do know Wiki isn't peer reviewed right? You do understand that simply reading what laymen have written on some random website doesn't actually make you a genius on the subject right?

 

So here's the bigger issue. You, Norman, and unaffiliated are only here for one reason. To fight. You don't care about conversation. You have zero interest in learning more about what 'the other side' has to offer. You simply come here to argue and pick fights. I'm not interested. Been there. Done that. It never goes anywhere and I waste countless hours of my time putting evidence in front of blind eyes. Copy/pasting Wiki and then pretending like the horizon problem isn't a problem is sheer ignorance on your part but you don't care. You're not here to learn. You're here to fight. Problem is I'm old and I know when to walk away. I'm not interested in feeding some deep inherent need you have to fight about things you don't understand nor do you even care to understand.

 

So go ahead and have the last word. Pretend like you 'won'. I don't care. I'm only interested in conversing with those that want to have intellectual conversations about the creation side of things and where it all leads. 



#43 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 07 July 2014 - 09:52 AM

In your attempts to debate the origins of life and the universe, you've blown the biggest hole in your argument. The only thing you have to say is simply, God did it. If you have so much faith in your God, then why even debate? You already have all the answers. Why even try to understand what He did? Why put yourself through the trouble? 

 

Yes, we proclaim God did it, but we also attempt to persuade that God did it.  It seems to be the persuasion part you object to, but I'd be curious why.  I would just answer that we persuade because there are consequences to what people believe.  

 

OTOH, in your world view, there are no ultimate consequences to beliefs.  All ends when we die and it doesn't really matter.  Right?  

 

So I would turn the tables and assert it's you being irrational, trying to persuade creationists not to persuade.  Thoughts?  



#44 into_nothing

into_nothing

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • IL

Posted 07 July 2014 - 09:14 PM

 

Yes, we proclaim God did it, but we also attempt to persuade that God did it.  It seems to be the persuasion part you object to, but I'd be curious why.  I would just answer that we persuade because there are consequences to what people believe.  

 

OTOH, in your world view, there are no ultimate consequences to beliefs.  All ends when we die and it doesn't really matter.  Right?  

 

So I would turn the tables and assert it's you being irrational, trying to persuade creationists not to persuade.  Thoughts?  

 

OTOH, in your world view, there are no ultimate consequences to beliefs.  All ends when we die and it doesn't really matter.  Right?  

 

Yep. You die, and that's it. Having eternal life seems pretty irrational to me. Everyone would be infinitely lazy.

 

So I would turn the tables and assert it's you being irrational, trying to persuade creationists not to persuade.  Thoughts?  

 

This is what is irrational. People for thousands of years (religious and non-religious alike) have asked questions. These people spend most of their lives trying to answer these questions. The questions that are answered are given the utter most scrutiny before they are accepted. These people use these newly found discoveries to pursue more difficult questions. More questions get answered. These people use what they have learned to create technology to help them answer even more difficult questions, and at the same time create and share that technology with the rest of the world to improve (most of the time) the lives of their fellow man. Everything we use today, is the product of peoples extremely hard work and obsession to learn about the world around them. Some of it is pretty much set in stone to be true, some of it needs work, some of it could be completely wrong but that's science. I'm honored to have the right answer to something, and equally honored to be dead wrong about something, either way you've learned something new. This is what I find disturbing. And this is more aimed toward YEC, and Anti-Evolutionists; (You're gonna hate me for this) You reject highly accepted theories, laws, and ideas that carry an extraordinary amount of evidence, and you use a book which you believe, without any shred of evidence whatsoever (Faith), is the word of god to claim they are wrong, and attempt to use science to prove things that are known to be wrong, to be true. There is a good reason why none of your theories have been established and accepted by the scientific community. It's not a conspiracy against your religion or beliefs. It's because none of it holds up to what it claims. So when people like Mr. Ham from the Creationist Museum say this is all some secular conspiracy I cringe. Technically, if you believe the Earth is 6000 years old and if that wasn't true, you can conclude that the supposed "Word of God" is not true by contradiction. But you can't admit defeat. And you keep trying to punch holes in something you can't. This same thing happened before. Remember when the Earth was the center of the universe? When it was shown not to be the case, Christianity put up a fit. Why? Because it contradicted what God said and what was believed. I think nowadays, this is starting up again. All of this YEC, and Anti-Evolution, and "There really was a flood", and this and that, is a last ditch effort to keep Christianity, and any other religion for that matter alive. Because deep down you know the very foundation is crumbling. The moral foundation crumbles, your significance crumbles, and before you know it everything you have believed in is gone. But if that's where the answers lead, as a scientist or intellectual you must accept it. Is it possible there is some type of supreme being? Yes. Can it be proven? No. Can it be disproven? No. When I say i'm atheist, I'm atheist toward any religion or deity that humanity ever worshipped. In my opinion, they're made up by man, and obviously can/have/or will been proven wrong. I can start with Christianity, and Islam. No person can walk on water, or come back from the dead. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support it. And physics doesn't allow it either. So therefore, if that's the "Word of God", the "Word of God" has been shown to be false. Simple as that. QED.



#45 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 07 July 2014 - 10:09 PM

 

OTOH, in your world view, there are no ultimate consequences to beliefs.  All ends when we die and it doesn't really matter.  Right?  

 

Yep. You die, and that's it. Having eternal life seems pretty irrational to me. Everyone would be infinitely lazy.

 

So I would turn the tables and assert it's you being irrational, trying to persuade creationists not to persuade.  Thoughts?  

 

This is what is irrational. People for thousands of years (religious and non-religious alike) have asked questions. These people spend most of their lives trying to answer these questions. The questions that are answered are given the utter most scrutiny before they are accepted. These people use these newly found discoveries to pursue more difficult questions. More questions get answered. These people use what they have learned to create technology to help them answer even more difficult questions, and at the same time create and share that technology with the rest of the world to improve (most of the time) the lives of their fellow man. Everything we use today, is the product of peoples extremely hard work and obsession to learn about the world around them. Some of it is pretty much set in stone to be true, some of it needs work, some of it could be completely wrong but that's science. I'm honored to have the right answer to something, and equally honored to be dead wrong about something, either way you've learned something new. This is what I find disturbing. And this is more aimed toward YEC, and Anti-Evolutionists; (You're gonna hate me for this) You reject highly accepted theories, laws, and ideas that carry an extraordinary amount of evidence, and you use a book which you believe, without any shred of evidence whatsoever (Faith), is the word of god to claim they are wrong, and attempt to use science to prove things that are known to be wrong, to be true. There is a good reason why none of your theories have been established and accepted by the scientific community. It's not a conspiracy against your religion or beliefs. It's because none of it holds up to what it claims. So when people like Mr. Ham from the Creationist Museum say this is all some secular conspiracy I cringe. Technically, if you believe the Earth is 6000 years old and if that wasn't true, you can conclude that the supposed "Word of God" is not true by contradiction. But you can't admit defeat. And you keep trying to punch holes in something you can't. This same thing happened before. Remember when the Earth was the center of the universe? When it was shown not to be the case, Christianity put up a fit. Why? Because it contradicted what God said and what was believed. I think nowadays, this is starting up again. All of this YEC, and Anti-Evolution, and "There really was a flood", and this and that, is a last ditch effort to keep Christianity, and any other religion for that matter alive. Because deep down you know the very foundation is crumbling. The moral foundation crumbles, your significance crumbles, and before you know it everything you have believed in is gone. But if that's where the answers lead, as a scientist or intellectual you must accept it. Is it possible there is some type of supreme being? Yes. Can it be proven? No. Can it be disproven? No. When I say i'm atheist, I'm atheist toward any religion or deity that humanity ever worshipped. In my opinion, they're made up by man, and obviously can/have/or will been proven wrong. I can start with Christianity, and Islam. No person can walk on water, or come back from the dead. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support it. And physics doesn't allow it either. So therefore, if that's the "Word of God", the "Word of God" has been shown to be false. Simple as that. QED.

 

You're pretty good at shadow boxing. Don't expect your stay here to last very long if you can't even be bothered to actually learn what creationists believe and why they believe it. Regurgitating a litany of tired old straw men (in this and other threads) is not a good start.



#46 into_nothing

into_nothing

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • IL

Posted 08 July 2014 - 05:34 AM

 

You're pretty good at shadow boxing. Don't expect your stay here to last very long if you can't even be bothered to actually learn what creationists believe and why they believe it. Regurgitating a litany of tired old straw men (in this and other threads) is not a good start.

 

Very well.

 

Here's a new question for everyone.

 

1) Prove to a person who is a non-believer, using the scientific method the following

 

a: A human being can walk on water.

b: A human being can come back to life after being dead for three days.

 

This is a legitimate question.



#47 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 08 July 2014 - 06:18 AM

Very well.
 
Here's a new question for everyone.
 
1) Prove to a person who is a non-believer, using the scientific method the following
 
a: A human being can walk on water.
b: A human being can come back to life after being dead for three days.
 
This is a legitimate question.

 
No, it’s not a legitimate question. By its very methodology and its dependence on repeatability the scientific method is incapable of proving or disproving an event that is by definition unnatural (contrary to what we observe to occur regularly and consistently), and therefore, unrepeatable. Either you are completely ignorant of basic epistemology, or you are just here to waste our time with insincere kindergarten conundrums. Which is it?



#48 into_nothing

into_nothing

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • IL

Posted 08 July 2014 - 06:45 AM

No, it’s not a legitimate question. By its very methodology and its dependence on repeatability the scientific method is incapable of proving or disproving an event that is by definition unnatural (contrary to what we observe to occur regularly and consistently), and therefore, unrepeatable. Either you are completely ignorant of basic epistemology, or you are just here to waste our time with insincere kindergarten conundrums. Which is it?


"By its very methodology and its dependence on repeatability the scientific method is incapable of proving or disproving an event that is by definition unnatural."

If the bible claims this has happened, it is open to scientific inquiry. Because by experiment, it's incredibly simple to test. A person who attempts to walk on water will have no choice but to swim. And a person that has been dead for three days, is dead. Believing it did happen based on faith, is not science. If you claim this event is "unnatural"/supernatural, it's not science. If people are going to make extraordinary claims, there has to be extraordinary evidence. Why don't Christian scientists ever make an effort to prove this? Because it's impossible. But not impossible to prove wrong from a scientific perspective. And if this message board is based on proving events in the bible based on science, this event is up for it as well.

#49 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 08 July 2014 - 07:07 AM

"By its very methodology and its dependence on repeatability the scientific method is incapable of proving or disproving an event that is by definition unnatural."

If the bible claims this has happened, it is open to scientific inquiry. Because by experiment, it's incredibly simple to test. A person who attempts to walk on water will have no choice but to swim. And a person that has been dead for three days, is dead. Believing it did happen based on faith, is not science. If you claim this event is "unnatural"/supernatural, it's not science. If people are going to make extraordinary claims, there has to be extraordinary evidence. Why don't Christian scientists ever make an effort to prove this? Because it's impossible. But not impossible to prove wrong from a scientific perspective. And if this message board is based on proving events in the bible based on science, this event is up for it as well.

 

You don't even know what science is. Science (Greek - gnosis) is knowledge. All knowledge, & not just that which is discovered in a laboratory. What God Almighty says is science...in the truest sense of the word. If He says that Jesus walked on water then Jesus walked on water. It was a supernatural act because the Lord is a supernatural being. If He says that Christ rose from the dead then He rose from the dead. The truth is that this has happened in our generation at least three well documented times that I know of. Here's one:

 

 

We are not therefore bound to accept your limited view of what science is or what applies to what you think is scientific inquiry. The day will come when the natural world and the supernatural will be the same thing and your challenges as to what is scientific and what is not will no longer be relevant. Having been witnsess to the supernatural on a number of occasions in my 63 yrs, such a position is not even relevant in my mind in the present.



#50 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 08 July 2014 - 07:14 AM

 

OTOH, in your world view, there are no ultimate consequences to beliefs.  All ends when we die and it doesn't really matter.  Right?  

 

Yep. You die, and that's it. Having eternal life seems pretty irrational to me. Everyone would be infinitely lazy.

 I'll try to be polite but I reject your thesis:

 

I am not and never have been a 'lazy' person. I've worked all my life and scientific investigation has been a very important part of my life as a former science school teacher for 26 years and a researcher for 45 years.

 

And...having 'eternal life' could only be 'irrational' to one who believes in a world/universe that happened all by itself...directly contrary to known scientific laws which tell us that matter can neither be created nor destroyed; certainly not be anything that we know of in the natural world.



#51 into_nothing

into_nothing

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • IL

Posted 08 July 2014 - 07:22 AM

You don't even know what science is. Science (Greek - gnosis) is knowledge. All knowledge, & not just that which is discovered in a laboratory. What God Almighty says is science...in the truest sense of the word. If He says that Jesus walked on water then Jesus walked on water. It was a supernatural act because the Lord is a supernatural being. If He says that Christ rose from the dead then He rose from the dead. The truth is that this has happened in our generation at least three well documented times that I know of. Here's one:
 

 
We are not therefore bound to accept your limited view of what science is or what applies to what you think is scientific inquiry. The day will come when the natural world and the supernatural will be the same thing and your challenges as to what is scientific and what is not will no longer be relevant. Having been witnsess to the supernatural on a number of occasions in my 63 yrs, such a position is not even relevant in my mind in the present.

Keep in mind your are trying to convince someone who does not believe these events happened. Saying that if God said it did, it did, won't cut it. You are attempting to use science to prove other extraordinary claims, why not this one?

(Copy and pasted)
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

#52 into_nothing

into_nothing

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • IL

Posted 08 July 2014 - 07:41 AM

"It was Oct. 20, 2006, at Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center, and Crandall said he felt God telling him to give Markin one more shock with a defibrillator. He gave the order, and Markin’s heart monitor immediately registered a steady heartbeat. Markin remains alive and well today."

He was defib'd. So what.

#53 EQuestions

EQuestions

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 222 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • North America

Posted 08 July 2014 - 08:19 AM

 

Very well.

 

Here's a new question for everyone.

 

1) Prove to a person who is a non-believer, using the scientific method the following

 

a: A human being can walk on water.

b: A human being can come back to life after being dead for three days.

 

This is a legitimate question.

 

It's not really a legitimate question. If it is then answer this.

 

Very well.

 

Here's a new question for you.

 

1) Prove to a person who is a believer, using the scientific method the following

 

a: A universe can come into existence out of nothing naturally

b: Life can come from non life naturally

 

This is a legitimate question.


  • Calypsis4 likes this

#54 into_nothing

into_nothing

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • IL

Posted 08 July 2014 - 08:39 AM

It's not really a legitimate question. If it is then answer this.
 
Very well.
 
Here's a new question for you.
 
1) Prove to a person who is a believer, using the scientific method the following
 
a: A universe can come into existence out of nothing naturally
b: Life can come from non life naturally
 
This is a legitimate question.


a: Science doesn't have an answer to that question yet. And we don't know for sure if the universe came out of nothing either.
b: Science doesn't have an answer to that question either.

#55 into_nothing

into_nothing

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • IL

Posted 08 July 2014 - 09:25 AM

And I'd like to add just because we don't know, doesn't mean a God did it, nor does it mean a God didn't do it. But if a God did do it, it doesn't mean its your God that did. But before I'd jump to the easy answer of saying a God did it, I'd exhaust everything else before that conclusion.

#56 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 08 July 2014 - 09:30 AM

"It was Oct. 20, 2006, at Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center, and Crandall said he felt God telling him to give Markin one more shock with a defibrillator. He gave the order, and Markin’s heart monitor immediately registered a steady heartbeat. Markin remains alive and well today."

He was defib'd. So what.

 

He had been dead for nearly an hour....after God told Dr. Crandall to go back to the hospital room and pray for his revival....that's so what

 

Would you like to see the other examples? One of which is an african man who was dead and in the morgue for nearly three days? 



#57 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 08 July 2014 - 09:33 AM

Keep in mind your are trying to convince someone who does not believe these events happened. Saying that if God said it did, it did, won't cut it. You are attempting to use science to prove other extraordinary claims, why not this one?

(Copy and pasted)
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

 

Yes, it does. And it doesn't matter that a skeptic like you doesn't believe that He said it or did it. God determines the truth in this world, not you nor anyone of your persuasion. He told us in His inspired Word what the truth is but you have arbitrarily chosen not to believe Him.

 

The examples of resurrection were OBSERVED...so stop rationalizing. Those people, at least two of whom were raised from the dead are still walking the earth to this day.



#58 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 08 July 2014 - 09:35 AM

a: Science doesn't have an answer to that question yet. And we don't know for sure if the universe came out of nothing either.
b: Science doesn't have an answer to that question either.

 

No, of course you don't have an answer to eq's questions...but you have laws of science which tell you that those things cannot happen...yet you believe them anyway. And you call that 'science'. Three guesses as to why we don't believe your theory.



#59 EQuestions

EQuestions

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 222 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • North America

Posted 08 July 2014 - 09:37 AM

a: Science doesn't have an answer to that question yet. And we don't know for sure if the universe came out of nothing either.
b: Science doesn't have an answer to that question either.

 

And yet we live in a universe and life exists. 

 

So you just have blind faith that "Nature did it"? You said I can't use the God of the gaps argument but then why are you allowed to use the Nature of the gaps argument? That's a double standard. Apparently 'we don't know how a universe came from nothing and we don't know how life came from non life but rest assured....nature-did-it". That's not very honest of your part.



#60 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 08 July 2014 - 10:01 AM

Thanks for welcoming me to the forum FaithfulCenturion.

I know, as you mentioned, you will reply more later, but just as a response to your reply.......

The first 3 questions I asked you are more of your own opinion, you don't need to back them up, so I'm surprised you told me to look around to find answers to those. It's your own personal opinion. So I'll wait for your own answer on that one.

Secondly, there's a good reason why I asked the GPS question, since you're a Young Earth Creationist.

And lastly, I have another question I would like to ask is, All science is based on Creationists?!

Thanks!


Let me answer your question with a question. If you want something that doesn't exist what would you do? You only have 70 or so years to exist. so the obvious answer is you would have to create what you want or get it from somebody else that has already created it. Therefore, you are a creator yourself. Denigrating creation is denying your own ability. If you drive a car, did it evolve? At the least creationism is a valid way to bring something into existence. Since most alleged atheist/ evolutionists say that creationism is not scientific and we do have automobiles and other things that didn't evolve, they are wrong!

Moreover, science is simply glorified reasoning--given a cause what its most probable effect will be and given an effect what its most probable cause was? Personifying science as if it exists outside of the human mind is distracting to say the least. It's insulting to all human being that have the ability to reason.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: creationism, young earth

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users