Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

Lion of Judah

Advanced member
  • Content Count

    73
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Lion of Judah last won the day on June 4 2019

Lion of Judah had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

43 Excellent

2 Followers

About Lion of Judah

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    I love to serve the Lord Jesus Christ. This is my first and most important interest.

    Biblical history; Creation Science; Intelligent design; Reading and writing; Debating Creation/Evolution; Social work stuff; YouTube videos; college football

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
    Male
  • How old are you?
    35
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    Christian
  • What is your Worldview?
    Young Earth Creationist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Idaho

Recent Profile Visitors

140 profile views
  1. Lion of Judah

    Issues At Work

    An update on my job situation. Thank you all for the encouraging comments and for your prayers! I accepted a new job that was offered to me late last year (October 2018). I now work part-time and I have a higher income as a result. God is good! I have Tuesdays off and am able to spend all day with my 16th-month-old son. The work is much lighter and I am able to keep on top of things pretty well. I am hardly at the main office because my job has me out seeing patients all day. I get along with my co-workers very well and everyone is very nice. I wish you all the best in 2019 and Happy Easter!
  2. Lion of Judah

    question about methodological naturalism

    Hi Tirian, An individual can still hold a supernatural view of the universe philosophically and be able to complete pure, objective science. This is true because the scientific method lends itself to any person who wants to study nature using the scientific tools of observation, measurement, experimentation, and repeatability. The founders of modern science were all for the most part creationists and were able to make significant advances in every area of science simply by using the scientific method, and did not adhere to methodological naturalism. Most of them held the position that they were "thinking God's thoughts after Him" by digging into the secrets of nature. Naturalism is often defined as the philosophical view which acknowledges only natural elements and forces, denying the existence of the supernatural. Thus methodological naturalism is the default position of someone who holds an atheist position of reality and believes that the universe came into being strictly by atheistic means. There is a clear distinction between the scientific method and methodological naturalism. They are not synonymous. The scientific method uses true, objective methodology which anyone with any philosophical position can use to produce good science while methodological naturalism relies on a philosophical position or worldview which restricts conclusions and/or findings to only atheistic means. Best wishes.
  3. Lion of Judah

    Forum Upgrade complete!

    Fred, thank you for the upgrade. It will make chatting here a lot easier and connecting with people that much better. It's a wonderful ministry. Thanks again.
  4. Lion of Judah

    Idea To Solve Forum Problems A Fair Bit.

    Thanks for trying guys, but I'm a little puzzled that the people who created the forum are not able to provide technical support. What about the moderators, do they know of someone who can assist with these technical problems? Unless the issues are fixed by someone who runs the system, our only option is to circumvent them.
  5. Lion of Judah

    Stoeckle-Thaler Dna Study

    Creationists do not hold assumptions that evolutionists do. We know that evolutionists worship at the shrine of time, but saying that "time did it" has no bearing on reality. Much effort has been expended in an attempt to show that eons of time are available for evolution. However, to this day there is no way to show (whether it be fossil remains, the geologic column, or dating methods, etc.) that long periods of time actually took place. Deep time remains conceptual. For example, Charles Lyell in his Principles of Geology came up with the idea of deep time by simply looking at the strata. He divided the strata into three sections, youngest, older and ancient. However, he came up with his idea before much was known about fossil remains. And since then it's been long established that his idea does not match up with reality. Many still-living species can be found in the strata. Secular geologists and paleontologists have been educated under a 19th century error. Neither fossils nor strata tell us anything about deep time. I think you're over-thinking this a bit. If we're talking about snakes, then the many species of snakes come from a snake kind. Yes, there is a common ancestor to snakes and that is the snake original basic type which has the potential to produce many variations of itself. When we observe many so called "species of snakes," we're observing the many variational changes which are inherent in the genetic makeup of the snake kind. Whether it's 3000 species or 3 makes no difference because we're still talking about snakes. There is no issue here from a creationist standpoint. However, a good question to ask is "what specifications are used to determine that a snake is a different species?" Some of these standards are arbitrary and don't really distinguish snakes as different species by much. Reproductive isolation itself is an arbitrary way to determine that something is a new species. The term "species" is also associated more with an evolutionary view of the animal and plant kingdom rather than a creationist view. Yes, I would agree that "kind" in the creationist sense is the equivalent of family at the highest and genus at the lowest taxonomic level. Nevertheless, we have to remember that plant and animal classification is again something that is arbitrary and does not actually exist in nature. Taxonomy is something that is man made and while it's nice to have because it helps to locate organisms, many things can be classified wrongly or out of their proper category, even though it seems logical. As a result, I proceed with great caution when considering both plants and animals so that I don't fall into the classification trap of lumping or splitting. A good question is "what does natural selection select?" I encourage you to read my thread on "Is Natural Selection a Mechanism of Evolution?" Your next two statements appear to be contradictory. On the one hand we have species that will never escape their phylogenetic classification and on the other we have a blatant pattern of change. How does this make sense to you if you hold an evolutionary position. If we stick with evolution that says that there is only one common ancestor of all living things, then with certainty living things will escape they phylogeny over time. In one way or another, evolution is the idea of the hopeful monster, be it gradual or punctuated.
  6. Lion of Judah

    Is Earth The Center Of The Universe?

    I came across this documentary which I found profoundly interesting. Enjoy. Pay close attention to the pushback the makers of the documentary receive by raising questions about the Copernican principle at the end of documentary. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T701Oigyfrg
  7. Lion of Judah

    Stoeckle-Thaler Dna Study

    It doesn't matter because the study is clear that "species have very clear genetic boundaries." This is an important point which creationists, since the time of Gregor Mendel, have pointed out. As I was telling Wibble, the plasticity of the genome promoted by evolutionary biologists is simply a dream. It does not exist. Sub-species are not new species. Even if they get to a point of reproductive isolation they are not a new species. What were observing is variation. Check my response to Wibble for a further explanation of what variation is. Also, I encourage you to read Casey Luskin's "Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change." http://www.discovery.org/f/8411 Punctuated equilibrium was a convenient way of avoiding the difficulties of gradualism when there was no evidence for gradualism in the fossil remains. The idea did not arise out of biology, but from their observations of the fossils. This is not good science, and stands as simply tweaking (or adding) mechanisms to the concept of evolution to try to fit the data.
  8. Lion of Judah

    Stoeckle-Thaler Dna Study

    Wibble - Creationists do not accept speciation in the evolutionary sense where one organism transforms into another "across" species. No one in recorded history has actually observed a new species emerge. It simply does not occur. In fact, what has been observed is the increase of whole species becoming extinct. This is the opposite of evolution! Creationists do adhere to variation "within" the kinds (or basic types). Variations occur within basic types all the time, but they never go across those types to produce new types or species. This is a fundamental principle in biology which all biologists know and understand. This principle is based on the law of inheritance put forth by Gregor Mendel. Genetic variation is simply a rearrangement or an assortment of the existing DNA molecule within genes. Natural selection does not produce any novelties in the genome. Natural selection works much the same way as artificial selection does. If you ask any selective breeder, they will tell you that selection reaches a limit. The DNA code is that limit. Selection, both natural and artificial, can only select from the genes which are available in a given genome. This is Mendelian genetics 101. The plasticity of the genome by evolutionary biologists is simply a dream. It does not exist.
  9. Lion of Judah

    The Battle Over Peer-Reviewed Literature: Who's Winning?

    Who says that creationists and ID advocates are outside mainstream science? They too conduct empirical experimentation and observation (data which stands alone), but they provide a different perspective from which to interpret the data. As you pointed out, if science is operating within a free society, then their data should be accepted as the rest. No exceptions. As I mentioned in my original post, people who adhere to evolution believe they are on higher ground in regard to peer-review literature, but this is not true. We should not make the mistake and equate evolution to science. Evolution operates as a framework or a model by which data is interpreted. Not if the science is true. The wall that has been erected around evolution is motivated by religious views, not by scientific data. In fact, science has wholly refute evolution and all were left with are the religious views of people who are anti-creation. There are plenty of secular mainstream organizations which inform the public of what they're about. I invite you to visit the website of the National Center for Science Education and look at the "What We Do" section. What's there is as close to a statement of faith as anything else. Furthermore, would anyone who is an advocate of creation science ever be employed by such an organization? Like I said, it goes both ways. I will leave this topic alone after this post. Not at all. History is on the side of the creationists on this one. Modern science began within a Christian/creationist milieu. Some have said that Christianity is the mother of modern science. They are not wrong. The founders of modern science began to study nature on the basis that a rational God had created a world that could be rationally understood. This is why they were not surprised to find out something true about the world. The great scientists which came before our era operated on the motto: that they were thinking God's thoughts after Him. They truly believed that they could find out more about God by studying the natural world. Even the science that is conducted within a secular framework, provides us with more knowledge about God. Hands-on science is hands-on science and "everyone" including creationists and evolutionists conducts it in the same manner. The only difference is the philosophical backdrop within each one operates. The creationist will study the beauty of God's creation while an evolutionist will study how the universe brought about such diversity. I am quite puzzled by your assumptions about biblical creation. Below is Genesis 1:14-19: And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons,[f] and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.†And it was so.16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. I ask you, in the entire passage above, where does it say that we should not be able to see anything beyond 6,000 light years?
  10. Lion of Judah

    Some Posts Not Showing Up

    I've noticed that on some of the threads where I've posted comments that the comments themselves are not showing up at the bottom of the thread as usual. I've also noticed that there some topics which show 0 replies when there are multiple replies on the thread. Is this something that can be fixed? Thank you!
  11. Lion of Judah

    The Battle Over Peer-Reviewed Literature: Who's Winning?

    Why should we allow mainstream scientific literature to continue to present scientific data with an evolutionary spin? In some instances, the data is contorted to fit an evolutionary explanation when in fact the data "naturally" fits better with a creation or intelligent design explanation. Why should we stand for this scientific injustice? "Allow?" In a free society, how would you prevent it? As I have previously pointed out, creationists are free to dispute the data and/or conclusions and have established their own journals to do so. Then you would be opposed to every creationist scientific organization or publication. AFAIK, every one of them adheres to a statement of faith that says any evidence in conflict with a literal reading of Genesis is invalid BY DEFINITION. One of the problems ID has is it requires a redefinition of science to include supernatural acts. Creation by God is simply outside the scope of science. How can natural science even test a supernatural act by God? That alone is sufficient reason not to discuss divine creation. There are searchable databases of millions of scientific documents and only a handful make any mention at all of God. If the pendulum is going to swing back to design, why would it not swing back to biblical creation? If a scientist is contemplating design, it's almost certain that he will eventually contemplate the Designer. In western culture, the God of the Bible is a very likely candidate. As I pointed out, there are entirely independent lines of evidence in totally separate branches of science that will need to be dealt with. Here's just one .... walk out in your back yard on a clear night and look at the Milky Way. In a Biblical creation, you shouldn't even be able to see most of it. And that's just in THIS galaxy. "creationists are free to dispute the data and/or conclusions" Why would anyone suggest that creationists and ID advocates are on the outside, if we operate in a free society, in regard to the peer-review process? My original argument is that people have been conditioned to believe that the evolutionary framework is the default position as it relates to the peer-review process. It is NOT! Please try to think outside the box. "Then you would be opposed to every creationist scientific organization or publication." This goes both ways. "Creation by God is simply outside the scope of science." Origins is outside the scope of science, be it natural or supernatural. No scientist, be he ever so gifted and resourceful, can repeat origins, as it was a one time event. "That alone is sufficient reason not to discuss divine creation." Are we going to allow scientific freedom to thrive or not? Scientists should be allowed to go with the data in the direction in which it goes, and publish it in that way! No restrictions. "There are searchable databases of millions of scientific documents and only a handful make any mention at all of God." Does this mean that the data could not be put in a creation context if biblical creation was the prevailing paradigm? Science should not remain near-sighted because methodological naturalism is dominant in our current era. "In a Biblical creation, you shouldn't even be able to see most of it." I am not familiar with this particular view of biblical creation. Please cite your source. Best wishes. Lion ""In a Biblical creation, you shouldn't even be able to see most of it." Do you know what this is supposed to mean? I haven't a clue.. Not sure either. We'll see if he answers.
  12. Lion of Judah

    No True Christian Would Put Sugar On His Porridge

    Not at all. And I have met non-Christians who, by their actions and lives, demonstrate about as much "Christlikeness" as one can imagine. True. Christian teachings are just as subject to abuse and misrepresentation as Darwin's ideas. Is that "not at all" for a Christian requiring a specific standard or for spotting one? Sure, I've met some atheists who act and live better than some professing Christians, but without committing their lives to their Creator and Savior, Jesus Christ, their deeds are as filthy rags. Being good is not good enough.
  13. Lion of Judah

    The Battle Over Peer-Reviewed Literature: Who's Winning?

    Why should we allow mainstream scientific literature to continue to present scientific data with an evolutionary spin? In some instances, the data is contorted to fit an evolutionary explanation when in fact the data "naturally" fits better with a creation or intelligent design explanation. Why should we stand for this scientific injustice? "Allow?" In a free society, how would you prevent it? As I have previously pointed out, creationists are free to dispute the data and/or conclusions and have established their own journals to do so. Then you would be opposed to every creationist scientific organization or publication. AFAIK, every one of them adheres to a statement of faith that says any evidence in conflict with a literal reading of Genesis is invalid BY DEFINITION. One of the problems ID has is it requires a redefinition of science to include supernatural acts. Creation by God is simply outside the scope of science. How can natural science even test a supernatural act by God? That alone is sufficient reason not to discuss divine creation. There are searchable databases of millions of scientific documents and only a handful make any mention at all of God. If the pendulum is going to swing back to design, why would it not swing back to biblical creation? If a scientist is contemplating design, it's almost certain that he will eventually contemplate the Designer. In western culture, the God of the Bible is a very likely candidate. As I pointed out, there are entirely independent lines of evidence in totally separate branches of science that will need to be dealt with. Here's just one .... walk out in your back yard on a clear night and look at the Milky Way. In a Biblical creation, you shouldn't even be able to see most of it. And that's just in THIS galaxy. "creationists are free to dispute the data and/or conclusions" Why would anyone suggest that creationists and ID advocates are on the outside, if we operate in a free society, in regard to the peer-review process? My original argument is that people have been conditioned to believe that the evolutionary framework is the default position as it relates to the peer-review process. It is NOT! Please try to think outside the box. "Then you would be opposed to every creationist scientific organization or publication." This goes both ways. "Creation by God is simply outside the scope of science." Origins is outside the scope of science, be it natural or supernatural. No scientist, be he ever so gifted and resourceful, can repeat origins, as it was a one time event. "That alone is sufficient reason not to discuss divine creation." Are we going to allow scientific freedom to thrive or not? Scientists should be allowed to go with the data in the direction in which it goes, and publish it in that way! No restrictions. "There are searchable databases of millions of scientific documents and only a handful make any mention at all of God." Does this mean that the data could not be put in a creation context if biblical creation was the prevailing paradigm? Science should not remain near-sighted because methodological naturalism is dominant in our current era. "In a Biblical creation, you shouldn't even be able to see most of it." I am not familiar with this particular view of biblical creation. Please cite your source. Best wishes. Lion
  14. Lion of Judah

    The Battle Over Peer-Reviewed Literature: Who's Winning?

    I appreciate your reply, but whether my argument will go far or not is up to the scientific data and how long the evolutionary paradigm will survive. My frustration is that cold, hard, naked science is dressed up with evolutionary beliefs and then passed off as evidence for or of evolution. This is obviously a farce. Peer-review material should be an objective look at the scientific data, but not when it's fashioned with evolutionary misinformation. I, for one, believe that the pendulum will swing back the other way over time, just as it swung away from the creationists of the modern science era. You and I may not live to see the shift back, but it will occur as the evidence continues to stack up against evolution. Why would you expect mainstream scientific journals to put a creationist or ID "spin" on the data? These papers weren't addressing whether or not evolution happens but HOW it happens. Whether you like it or not, mainstream scientific papers in fields of evolutionary biology are based on an assumption that evolution (as an explanation for the diversity of life) is true. I've already acknowledged that some of the complaints about objectivity have some validity. The pendulum may swing back to design. It will not swing all the way back to YEC. There are entirely independent lines of evidence in totally separate branches of science that will need to be dealt with. Likewise, Pi Why should we allow mainstream scientific literature to continue to present scientific data with an evolutionary spin? In some instances, the data is contorted to fit an evolutionary explanation when in fact the data "naturally" fits better with a creation or intelligent design explanation. Why should we stand for this scientific injustice? I find it easier to be a supporter of scientific freedom rather than adhering to strict dogma. Some secular scientists are all about freedom in the sciences and strongly publicize for other scientists to go in the direction where the data takes them, but not in the case of evolution. Anyone who breaks with evolution orthodoxy is not treated very nice. This should not be the case for a scientist who is seeking scientific truth. I think you would agree. If the pendulum is going to swing back to design, why would it not swing back to biblical creation? If a scientist is contemplating design, it's almost certain that he will eventually contemplate the Designer. In western culture, the God of the Bible is a very likely candidate. Best wishes. Lion
  15. Lion of Judah

    No True Christian Would Put Sugar On His Porridge

    This sarcastic comment was made by Wibble, as though to imply that Christians are mistaken if they say that bad behaviour doesn't fit with truly being Christian. In fact generally speaking, I come across a lot of atheists that make the same complaint, usually this is because a few Christians might go too far and basically use such an argument as a way of indulging good-cop-bad-cop, rhetoric. I always find it amusing when Christians raise this argument. The double standard they apply is too obvious. Christian: Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao were all evolutionists therefore evolution is responsible for their crimes. Evolutionist: (List of crimes against humanity created by self-proclaimed "Christians.") Christian: But those people weren't acting as "true" Christians. Evolutionist: And the ones you mentioned weren't "true" evolutionists either because their actions were against evolution. In fact, some of them were opposed to Darwinian evolution. You don't get to have it both ways, mike. Hi Piasan, The word "Christian" requires real "content" or substance in order for it to be true about an individual. It can't be thrown around casually without meaning or is based on a meaning that is relative. Being a Christian requires a specific standard. A Christian is a person who has decided to follow Christ and lives his or her life for Him. And while this short definition is true, the real thrust (or weight) of the word is found in the writings of first century Christians. A Christian is someone who is saved (Acts 11:19-23). A Christian is someone who exhibits a changed life (Acts 11:24). A Christian is someone who walks in faith (Acts 11:24). A Christian is someone who shares the Gospel (Acts 11:24). A Christian is someone who helps others how to live like Christ (Acts 11:25-26). In doing these things, a person demonstrates Christlikeness, which is something that is not difficult to spot. I've met people who profess to be Christians, but their lives do not demonstrate Christlikeness and are really only Christians in name. However, I've met some people who do not announce publicly that they are Christians (until later), but by their actions and lives, it's evident that they are Christians. Even Jesus discounted some people as members of the church who did not own up to their wrongdoing (Matthew 18:14-17). Atheists insist that Hitler was a devout Christian, and while it's true that he grew up Catholic, later in life he substantially deviated from the teachings of the Catholic church. No one can seriously say that Hitler prayed to a Jewish carpenter every night, and believed that He was his Savior! The policies which drove the Third Reich did not resemble Christianity in the least with the expansion of the Reich by annexing other nations and attempting to create a master race. The Reich was a perfect example of Social Darwinism where survival of the fittest was seen as a good model for how societies should operate. Richard Weikart in his book "Hitler's Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich" provides a good explanation of what Hitler believed and what his true religion was. In short, Hitler was a pantheist who believed that nature was God. This is an obvious contrast to historic Christianity. Even though Hitler was baptized a Catholic, it did not mean that he followed the teachings of the church. He was a Catholic in title, but not in life. The same is true of many other people. Best wishes.
×

Important Information

Our Terms