Jump to content


Photo

Give Creation A Chance


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
86 replies to this topic

#41 Guest_Franklin_*

Guest_Franklin_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 August 2009 - 03:39 AM

Why don't you start a thread with any one of the chapters of Origin of Species and briefly explain what is so important about it. Put into your own words what is so profound about it.

View Post


Thanks.
But first, may I clarify what Creation Science tells us about our natural environment?
I'd like to return to that list of questions, but realising I'd let them tumble out too thick and fast, how about the top one: day and night?
What can Creatiion Science tell us about the reasons for day and night?



I have to warn you, if you continue to make assertions without giving people the opportunity to explain what they understand or believe while you accuse them of not understanding evolution simply because they disagree with it will end your tenure here quickly.

View Post

I had rather thought that the assertions I've been making - while provocative - had been couched in such a way as to encourage their refutation.
As for my accusing people of "not understanding evolution simply because they disagree with it" I look forward to that accusation being proved unfounded.

#42 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 August 2009 - 05:43 AM

As for my accusing people of "not understanding evolution simply because they disagree with it" I look forward to that accusation being proved unfounded.

View Post

This was an accusation, not a question, directed at Scott:

But that's because he has not read Origin of Species in which Darwin presents a mass of data arising from his extensive observations

View Post

Personally, I haven't stomached an entire reading of 'Origin of Species' but I've certainly read parts of it but I will gladly debate any concept that someone believes is profound and overlooked. I'll learn on the fly if have to. I've done it before.

#43 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 August 2009 - 05:45 AM

What can Creatiion Science tell us about the reasons for day and night?

View Post

We have the world at our disposal for observation just like you. God told us that He separated the light from the darkness. How He initially achieved this is a mystery. I would guess that this was the moment that the entire electromagnetic spectrum was created. He created light from darkness. He made energy from nothing, ex nihilo. However, just like you, we get to observe a small portion of the result in the form of shadows.

You know there are things in the Bible we can speculate about and be unclear on. What you are trying to do is demand the methods of creationists by presuming that we are not allowed to use the scientific method. What justifies this?

My brother offered this unorthodox perspective of the creation account that I still mull over:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1916

Our current basal philosophy regarding the scientific method was devised by God fearing people. What has changed since then that atheists believe they can rest the intellectual foundation away from those who believe in creation when creationists have been the foundational figures in the most profound and basic sciences known to men.

#44 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 August 2009 - 05:55 AM

I had rather thought that the assertions I've been making - while provocative - had been couched in such a way as to encourage their refutation.

View Post

Sorry to disappoint you but they weren't provocative. We're pretty patient around here so if you shift gears to engage in a dialogue, people will come alongside you to have discussions if they feel that you're talking with them and not at them.

#45 Guest_Franklin_*

Guest_Franklin_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 August 2009 - 03:16 PM

God told us that He separated the light from the darkness. How He initially achieved this is a mystery. I would guess that this was the moment that the entire electromagnetic spectrum was created. He created light from darkness. He made energy from nothing, ex nihilo. 

View Post


But none of that explains "day and night" - does it?
As I understand it, we experience "day" and "night" because we inhabit a planet, one side being lit by the sun while the other isn't. And because this planet spins, any one particular point on its surface experiences a sequence of "days" and "nights".

Is any of that even hinted at in Genesis?
In suggesting it, am I contradicting the revealed account of Creation, just as the Theory of Evolution contradicts it?
Is that why Creation Science makes no mention of it, but refers instead to the creation of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, ex nihilo, and preceding the creation of the sun, which happens after dry land has been made to appear in the water (presumably this refers to the Earth?) that's below the firmament in which the sun is set.

If the entire electromagnetic spectrum can exist without a source of energy to provide the electromagnetism, I have to ask why we need one at all?
According to Genesis, the sun is so peripheral it's not even needed for photosynthesis - it's just up there in the heavens to "rule the day".
Is that what Creation Science argues?

...creationists have been the foundational figures in the most profound and basic sciences known to men.

View Post


Absolutely. Including Darwin.

#46 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 05 August 2009 - 05:17 AM

I would caution folks that reading Darwin just to say you've done it is a waste of time. Any time Darwin's writing comes up, you'll get belittled and told how "out-of-date" it all is & that you need to read up on "the modern theory of evolution", which is of course nothing but vaporware.

Evolutionists generally don't have a clue what Darwin actually said. Almost - just ever soooo almost - none of them have read his junk themselves, and those who have seem to have paid about as much attention as they pay when reading my posts.

Now it is educational to read Darwin. Many of the standard equivocations & dodges can be seen, so it's not nearly as out-of-date as they claim. For example (one of many) it was Darwin who taught them to say "all lifeforms are transitional" when they can't find any that actually are. (I don't know who taught Darwin to say it.) In my opinion, Darwin's version of the natural selection goddess sounds more plausible at first than theirs does - that's one thing that's changed. Neither match reality, but we already knew that.

#47 Guest_Franklin_*

Guest_Franklin_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 August 2009 - 01:50 PM

I would caution folks that reading Darwin just to say you've done it is a waste of time. Any time Darwin's writing comes up, you'll get belittled and told how "out-of-date" it all is & that you need to read up on "the modern theory of evolution", which is of course nothing but vaporware.

View Post

So I hope CTD will take part in the thread, to be started shortly, on The Origin of Species

"...it was Darwin who taught them to say 'all lifeforms are transitional' when they can't find any that actually are." .

View Post

Quite sure of that?
Ever heard of species-to-species transitional morphologies? May I suggest a Google search for "Evidence of species-to-species transitional morphologies"?

And since "evolution" and "transitional life forms" seem too improbable to be true, how about electromagnetic radiation existing in the absence of an energy source for it to radiate from - as is proposed by Creation science?
The most powerful source of it in the solar system comes from nuclear fussion taking place in the Sun which accounts for more than 99 per cent of the Solar System's mass, yet according to Genesis the Sun was a rather incidental adjunct to the Creation process.

In the absence of that and all the other billions upon billions of stars in the cosmos, the mysterious generation of electromagnetic radiation is thought by Creation Scientists to have allowed God to create light on Day 1 of Creation - thus "day and night".
Can they tell us on what did the light fall - precisely? And what, precisely, was shrouded in darkness when the electromagnatic radiation was switched off at night?

#48 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 August 2009 - 02:10 PM

Ever heard of species-to-species transitional morphologies? May I suggest a Google search for "Evidence of species-to-species transitional morphologies"?

View Post

Show us:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2474

#49 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 August 2009 - 02:13 PM

Can they tell us on what  did the light fall - precisely? And what, precisely, was shrouded in darkness when the electromagnatic radiation was switched off at night?

View Post

You tell us where all the energy and matter came from and we'll tell you exactly how the light worked on the first few days of creation. ;)

#50 Guest_Franklin_*

Guest_Franklin_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 August 2009 - 02:44 PM

You tell us where all the energy and matter came from and we'll tell you exactly how the light worked on the first few days of creation. ;)

View Post


I've absolutely no idea, though I expect a few cosmologists might make a stab at proposing an answer. Perhaps by the year 3,500 it won't be a mystery. If it isn't, it'll be because scientists never gave up looking for an answer.

Will Creationists, relying on Biblical revelation, ever know "how the light worked on the first few days of creation"?

I remain curious, meanwhile, where and on what Creationists believe the light of that first day fell - and where or what was cloaked in the darkness of night?
(Also, are we speaking of a 24-hour day-night cycle? Did that 24-hour period determine the speed at which God subsequently set the world spinning on its access? Has the number "24" some mystical, yet hitherto-unrecognised significance?)

#51 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 August 2009 - 02:49 PM

I've absolutely no idea, though I expect a few cosmologists might make a stab at proposing an answer. Perhaps by the year 3,500 it won't be  a mystery. If it isn't, it'll be because scientists never gave up looking for an answer.

View Post

What if the answer turns out to be God? Do you suppose all the scientists between now and then will repent for all the people they lead to Hell as they promised answers from a contrived paradigm that illogically rejects a creator as unscientific and therefore assumed to be unrealistic?

#52 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 August 2009 - 02:53 PM

Will Creationists, relying on Biblical revelation, ever know "how the light worked on the first few days of creation"?

View Post

I feel confident that one day I'll be resting in the arms of my savior who will graciously entertain my curiosity. In the meantime I serve by tending to the more important and weightier matters and refuse to let my ponderings of peripheral things mire me in a debilitating funk.

#53 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 August 2009 - 02:56 PM

I remain curious, meanwhile, where and on what Creationists believe the light of that first day fell - and where or what was cloaked in the darkness of night?

View Post

I'm curious too but not so curious that I have to have such questions answered prior to acknowledging mine and your obvious need for salvation.

#54 Guest_Franklin_*

Guest_Franklin_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 August 2009 - 03:23 PM

Show us:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2474

View Post


Here's one site
http://darwiniana.or...ansitionals.htm

What if the answer turns out to be God?

View Post


Excellent news for those who believe such an entity exists outside the human imagination!
The record, however, doesn't look too promising - unless one refers to ancient texts which describe uncorroborated and unverified events of long long ago.

In modcern times God has kept such a low profile that it takes faith to believe he exists at all.

#55 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 05 August 2009 - 07:12 PM

Hey guys and girls,

Sorry, I've been away for a couple of days on a well earned holiday :)

Glad to see this thread has kept going in my absence. Does look like it got a little side tracked there for a bit, but my thanks to Adam and Franklin who seem to be trying to get it back on track.

The question of day and night seems like a nice simple example to continue working with. Adam has listed the Genesis story as evidence. Is there anything else that Creationists use to explain this important aspect of our world?

I also thought this might be interesting to discuss further.

Creation, it doesn't need a theory. You find evidence that fits the Creation account. It's that simple. What are you asking for when you mean Creation Theory???

A Flood Model??? got it

A Flood Model on the assorment of layers??? Got it.


I'm sure these things have been covered before, but I don't think they've been covered in the same way I'm proposing here. Do you think you could go over these models/theories again for us? I'd be interested to see how many questions these theories can answer.

Now, there is no theory of Creation. It was a historical account, not a theory. We don't call the Civil War, the Theory of the Civil War. A truth is truth, no matter who or what's opinion on the truth is.


Even historical accounts use evidence and build theories to explain the past. Would you be kind enough to outline some of the evidences/models/theories that explain the historical accuracies? This will link in with the flood model previously mentioned, but I'd also be interested to hear some of the evidence that supports the Genesis account.

You see, Creationist, are creationist because of a historical account, not a theory. The Scientific method is used by Creationist, to figure out all the same things as everyone else in the universe does. We all do it through the same process.


This is the kind of thing I'm looking for. I'm not trying to claim Creationists don't use the scientific method, I'm askng how it is used and how conlcusions are drawn.

Just a brief reminder to those participating here that the Creationists are providing the stories, and the evolutionists are questioning that evidence; we are not trying to provide our own.

Regards,

Arch.

#56 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 05 August 2009 - 08:12 PM

Excellent news for those who believe such an entity exists outside the human imagination!

As opposed to those who think the past is subject to their own imaginations...

The record, however, doesn't look too promising - unless one refers to ancient texts which describe uncorroborated and unverified events of long long ago.

View Post

Let's see which method makes more sense: investigate history by consulting the writings of people who lived way back when, or just dream up whatever we choose and desire to have taken place? Show me a kindergartener who can't figure that one out.

#57 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 05 August 2009 - 08:40 PM

Is that what Creation Science argues?

View Post

Instead of continually constructing more and more straw creationism, why not do a little reading and find out what creationists actually say. Until you know what creationism is actually about, what business do you have criticizing it?

#58 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 05 August 2009 - 09:45 PM

Instead of continually constructing more and more straw creationism, why not do a little reading and find out what creationists actually say. Until you know what creationism is actually about, what business do you have criticizing it?

View Post


That's what this forum is meant to be about CTD. I'm asking the Creationists to share what they believe and demonstrate how they come to these conclusions.

What good is it doing telling people to go read about Creationists beliefs when that's what we're discussing right here?

Franklin shouldn't be 'constructing' anything. The quote CTD has posted here is actually a question, and in line with what I asked for in the OP.

Regards,

Arch.

#59 Guest_Franklin_*

Guest_Franklin_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 August 2009 - 03:31 AM

I feel confident that one day I'll be resting in the arms of my savior who will graciously entertain my curiosity. 

View Post


So Creation Science isn’t so much “it’s a mystery, so let’s try solving it” as “It’s a mystery, but that doesn’t matter because God will explain it to me after I’m dead and gone to heaven”?

As the recipient of two artificial hips (without which I’d be in a wheelchair and wracked with pain 24x24) and the beneficiary of a vitrectomy and membrane peel which stopped me going blind as a result of developing a hole in the macular, and of a Cat Scan which led to the untangling of my intestine which had got itself into a 180-degree twist, causing four days of the most excruciating discomfort (and if unattended would have killed me), I hope I won’t be condemned for thinking “It’s a mystery, so let’s try solving it” is more useful.

#60 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 August 2009 - 03:48 AM

But none of that explains "day and night" - does it?
As I understand it, we experience "day" and "night" because we inhabit a  planet, one side being lit by the sun while the other isn't. And because this planet spins, any one particular point on its surface  experiences a sequence of "days" and "nights".

View Post


That would be incorrect Stephen, or inconclusively bias and self serving to be more succinct. We experience day because of a star in our solar system that some call Sol, or the Sun etc… But, prior to that there had to be a solar system, and yes an universe in which to place that solar system, star (our sun) and planet (our Earth) before we “experience ‘day’ and ‘night’ because we inhabit a planet, one side being lit by the sun while the other isn't. And because this planet spins, any one particular point on its surface experiences a sequence of ‘days’ and ‘nights’.

So, for a better explanation, you need to take the bigger picture into account. And Genesis does that quite well. If you want Biblical explanations for the inner workings that scientists want to explain, or think they can explain…. Well many of these answers are in the scriptures. But you will never find the answers with your pseudo-intellectual blinders set at zero visibility Stephen.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users