Creation questions

Have you read and open-mindedly done a critical analysis of his work?

Had he read a biology textbook written by someone you consider "qualified" then he would only get one point of view about origins from a biased source.

That really depends on whether they are educated and open-minded to ideas that challenge convention or if they are simply very well indoctrinated into the philosophy of naturalism.

Your behavior and that of "science" academians is typical for those trying to protect their "turf" and preserve their exclusive claims to being "expert" in any field at any time.

You dismiss those who creatively and intelligently disagree with you the same way "flat-earthers" dismissed those who proposed that the world was round.

If I am not mistaken real scientists once accepted Darwin's notion that the "black box" would ultimately be very simple. Real scientists once proclaimed the glory of "Piltdown" man and "Nebraska" man.

These are cases where the hard evidence finally killed strongly held false beliefs. But many of the things that evolutionists say about origins are beyond proof or disproof. Macroevolution cannot be proven nor disproven.

Fossils are force fit into lineages but there is no categorical proof that they belong where they are put. Even the scientists themselves acknowledge that very frequently almost all of an ancient animals supposed physical make up is from the imagination of an artist... who quite frequently builds that appearance based on the expectation of where the animal falls in its evolutionary lineage.

Evolution is huge, very complex case of circular reasoning... that always comes back to an unfalsifiable premise of naturalism. It is therefore not scientific according to "science's" own rule about what is and is not scientific.

 

Just like all the FACTS they espouse!

This is just ONE of the assumptions they regard as FACTS.

True, the creationists cannot PROOVE scientifically that their position is true either, but we admit that, and simply state that we believe the account that God gave us as the true account.

The evolutionists on the other hand, refuse to admit that there is NO, NADA, ZERO proof of their rabidly held religion, and so they choose to believe man's version over that of God.

The hypocrisy is what's so galling, not that they choose to believe differently!

 

It isn't just evolution vs creation.

I was in a discussion on a public board once with someone who was making the statement that there was absolutely no historical evidence that Jesus Christ existed, or that the city of Nazareth existed.

The absurdity of the statement was astounding, but rather than call the person an idiot, I showed them numerous pieces of evidence refuting their claim. From the writings of Josephus to Roman reports to Letters from non-Christians about the whole thing, to archeological findings of the village of Nazareth.

They accused me of making them up at first.
Then they came back days later with statements like, "Someone tampered with Josepheius' writing!" and "That village doesn't count because it was just 30 families and they were all related," and "Just because that writer talked about things you Christians claim doesn't make it accurate. They probably just heard the lies the early Christians were telling people to further their cult."

They have eyes, but they do not see.
They have ears, but they do not hear.

 

While the Josephus account was likely tampered with, there are many other non-Christian historian accounts verifying the existence of Jesus.

Probe Ministries : Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

 

*shaking my head sadly*

 

Craig, you make a lot of assumptions and present them as incontrovertible facts. In order to do your calculations you must have supplied the nonexistent statistics for the age, weight, size, and count of the animals on board. While I am sure you used what you consider reasonable, educated guesses that does not change that assumption from guesses into facts.

You assume that the animals would need to be separated by space hogging structures to prevent them from devouring each other. That would be the same assumption necessary to prevent the lions from devouring Daniel, or the need for a flame resistant suit for Shadrach, or the need for a cage that will prevent the lion from lying down with the lamb at some point.

Again, you must guess, however reasonable, about the size and number of animals based on what you consider necessary to accomplish the same thing manually.

Reasonable guesses.

Gee, my mistake, I forgot that fish needed to be rescued from being surrounded and submerged in WATER.

There are no verses which give this specific information (weight of the water) to complete your equations.

“no vegetation”, “no meat”, “vast mount of food”, all of these are supplied by you NOT evidence.

“would have had very specific dietary needs” – Do you mean that they HAVE, in a natural setting today, very specific needs?

Adam was confronted with the same problem when he named them all. I sure hope he had his degree in zoology so he would know not to have little bunny rabbits and them mean old snakes come by at the same time. (Facetious to make a point)

“physical impossibility no less impossible”. Totally agree, without God’s supernatural intervention this natural event most certainly would not have happened.

True, they would have gone on to new habitats. They would have been able to get there the same way they got to the ark in the first place. God brought them to the ark and He could take them from the ark.

It did not take the efforts of many thousands of person to prepare a place for them in Eden.

Well, he had 350 years of life left to conduct followup care. (Of course, 950 years old is a scientific impossibility as we understand geriatrics nowadays.)

There wasn’t? How much water was there? How high were the mountains and hills then? How deep were the depressions in the earth? Hey, if you let me supply the numbers I can come out with any answer you want. (Facetiousness, again)

If they aren’t it didn’t.

As I have stated before, just because it is scientifically impossible does not in any way effect the statement that it did happen. I would, as you have, found the whole story beyond credulous if I were presented with the task of preparing for such an event. Why, the logistics alone would require an army just to come up with a rough draft of anything remotely resembling a plausible plan.

Right back attcha.

 

When I took biology in high school I learned from both the text book and the teacher enough about biology to know that the ideas put forth by Henry Morris were contrary to biological facts. I have heard that American schools have really fallen short of where they used to be in the sciences, and perhaps that is also true in the U.K. The bottom line is that Henry Morris’ ideas are in direct conflict with basic biological facts—not just theories put forth by biologists, but observable biological facts.

I’m sorry if I was not clear. I was not speaking of myself in that statement.

 

There is also the simple fact that every "evolution scientist" chooses to overlook.

Miracles are, by definition, extra-ordinary events. If, today, the news came out, "Science proves Noah flood happened," I guarantee that it would NOT convince Science that it was a miracle by God, they'd write it off as "a natural phenomenon."

Twenty-one years ago I received a miracle from God. A cancerous tumor that was there from October to December, and was there at 7 a.m., the morning I was due to have surgery - vanished between an x-ray at 7 a.m., and surgery at 8:00 a.m.

To this day the scientists can't explain it.
The evidence is still with me. Holes in the bones where the cancer had eaten into my face.

Because it doesn't "fit" with science, does not change the fact - it happened.

This is GOD, Craig.

You can't define God, or His miracles, by science. He created science, He can change the laws of science.

Science says that Jesus Christ can't have been dead for three days and then walked among men - do you reject the resurrection of Christ because Science does?

 

I believe that most of the members who are reading this thread know which one of us is lying, AND willfully violating the rules of this message board by posting personal attacks against other members of this board. Some people may not like the tone of some of my posts, but they know that I very carefully investigate the facts and accurately and honestly post them.

There is really no nice way to put this without distorting the truth, so here it is: Both the AIG “ministry” and the ICR are known by scientists around the world for their willful distortion of the significance and the reasonable interpretation of both the data that they have collected and the data collected by others, and for their incompetence as scientists. Indeed, most of what they publish is such rubbish as to make many true scientists extremely disgusted, not only with these two organizations, but with Christians in general. We don’t need the help of both the AIG “ministry” and the ICR to usher more men and women into the fires of hell for eternity.

Men who have a respect for the Word of God do not deliberately distort the facts to make their personal interpretation of the Bible appear to be the only correct interpretation. The willful sins and gross incompetence of the AIG “ministry” and the ICR have turned multitudes against God and His word by making the Christian faith appear to be the faith of sinful, incompetent fools.

To the less than well educated Christian fundamentalist, the AIG “ministry” and the ICR appear to be tools in the hand of God defending the Bible; but to the well educated conservative Christian, the AIG “ministry” and the ICR appear to be a tool in the hand of the devil defending an untenable and highly inaccurate interpretation of the Bible, and making Christianity to appear to be intellectually unacceptable.

 

Liz, You are probably learning this on your own by now but no creationist is going to pass Craig's test for credibility concerning the issues of origins.

The first assumption is that a creationist is the ignorant victim of pseudo-scientists and/or biblical fundamentalists. This latter group's crime? To believe that words mean what they mean unless there is a clear intent by the author that they be taken as non-literal. This is accompanied by the associated assumption that a person lacks the right kind and amount of education.

If you demonstrate that you are educated/informed and still disagree with him then you fall into one or both of these classes: stupid or dishonest.

That's why he is so adament that creationist organizations are made up of dishonest people. He cannot claim legitimately that they are uneducated or stupid. Several have people who were formally evolutionists. Some by their own testimony began to doubt evolution before being converted to Christianity. Since they are not ignorant, stupid, or lacking in the right kinds of credentials then they must be dishonest because they still disagree with Craig.

There is absolutely no room in this debate with Craig for honest, educated disagreement. He must be right and anyone who questions that incontrovertible fact falls into one of the categories mentioned above... or else the one I forgot momentarily- mentally ill.

 

We all know that it was there before Noah was born and that it is there now. Are you suggesting that Noah's dog ate Mount Everest the day before the flood? Talk about ridiculous!

 

As for which animals existed in Noah's day, and how many of them there were, these matters have been discussed at length earlier in this thread. As for their size and their weight, horses and cows are the same size and of the same weight as they were in Noah’s day. Even when the biologists give the Christian fundamentalist every imaginable benefit of the doubt, we still come up with a boat that was only a small fraction of the necessary size. The only way around this is to assume that there was a very limited number of animals on the ark and that after the flood, evolution occurred at an absolutely impossible rate. Some creationists have made this argument, but when asked to explain how such a rapid rate of evolution could possibly occur, they have no answer for it.

 

That is quite a statement from someone who has called others here babboons and mentally ill.

BTW, If you are referring to me as a liar, I will say only this: I may be wrong. I don't think I am but Genesis may be a bunch of hooey.

Being wrong doesn't make one a liar though... but accusing someone of lying without KNOWING that they are willfully engaging in deceit is dishonest.

 

We all know that it was there before Noah was born and that it is there now. </font>[/QUOTE]As God asked Job... Were YOU there? Were the people you trust for this information there?

Didn't think so.

 

BTW, to claim to "know" something that cannot be categorically proven by direct observation is not very honest.

 

I also have some very important business in Tennessee (Chattanooga) to attend to, so I too need leave this thread.

May God our Father bless each and every one of you according to his riches in glory through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Please pray that I will make the right decisions regarding my business in Chattanooga, for it concerns the very serious needs of a Baptist church in a poor part of that city.

 

I learned that the THEORIES in the textbooks didn't agree with what Morris put forth. I would not want to put it any stronger than that. I also learned from a Chemistry teacher at the school (who had a PhD in biochemistry) about the impossible odds of even the simplest protein coming together by chance..

But you do have a PhD in biology?

Liz

 

We all know that it was there before Noah was born and that it is there now. Are you suggesting that Noah's dog ate Mount Everest the day before the flood? Talk about ridiculous!

</font>[/QUOTE]Where did the ark land. What was the name of the mount. It happened to be the tallest one around--not Everest. Everest and the taller mountains as we know them today emerged after the flood when the waters receded, causing the earth to fold in certain places; pushing up the earth and rock in some places and deepening the recesses of the waters in other places. Thus the waters were separated from the land.

No, the highest mount in Noah's time was Ararat, not a very high mounain at all.
DHK

 

I think Craig mentioned that he had a degree in evolutionary biology in another thread.

 

At least the "evolutionary biologist" Julian Huxley, was honest enough to admit: "I believe in evolution, not because it is credible, but because belief in God is far too incredible."
DHK