God’s 7000 Year (7-Day) Plan

[CJP69]

I don't believe the Earth is millions nor billions of years old, either. I think if it were, there would be much more damage done to the Earth in that time. I also doubt the sun wouldn't have burnt itself up in billions of years.

There's ten thousand reasons, at least, by which we can know without any shadow of a doubt that the Earth positively cannot possibly be billions or even millions of years old.

Terrific web page on this topic....

RSR's List of Not So Old Things.

 

[MrW]

RSR's List of Not So Old Things.

That's a very interesting site. Thanks.

 

[taisto]

What does RSR stand for and where is their scientific reviewed documentation? I looked at the page and I cannot find any documented peer reviewed support.

 

[37818]

What does RSR stand for and . . .

Real Science Radio. [YEC]

 

[taisto]

Real Science Radio. [YEC]

Do they have any scientists and any peer reviewed papers?

 

[37818]

Do they have any scientists and any peer reviewed papers?

Real Science Radio | KGOV.com
Maybe not.
https://www.realclearscience.com/2022/12/17/the_rise_and_fall_of_peer_review_870811.html

 

[CJP69]

Do they have any scientists and any peer reviewed papers?

You need to wake up and figure out what sort of world you live in.

They believe in a young earth. There isn't any scientific journal anywhere in existence that would publish any paper from such a group nor any organization of scientists who would risk their status with the scientific establishment by reviewing any such work had it gotten published.

The information on their website is presented in clear language that anyone can read and understand and they not only site their sources but publish their errors when they make them so that you don't have to simply take their word for it. If you find the information of profit then great, if not, then that's fine too. Take it or leave it.

 

[taisto]

You need to wake up and figure out what sort of world you live in.

They believe in a young earth. There isn't any scientific journal anywhere in existence that would publish any paper from such a group nor any organization of scientists who would risk their status with the scientific establishment by reviewing any such work had it gotten published.

The information on their website is presented in clear language that anyone can read and understand and they not only site their sources but publish their errors when they make them so that you don't have to simply take their word for it. If you find the information of profit then great, if not, then that's fine too. Take it or leave it.

So no scientists and no peer reviewed research. Got it.

 

[CJP69]

So no scientists and no peer reviewed research. Got it.

You are very likely the most intellectually dishonest person I've ever encountered on a theology website. You seem to look for opportunities to discredit and disparage anything that is actually Christian!

In actual fact, Bob Enyart has published some peer reviewed work. He was a full time pastor of a church and not a professional scientist and what scientific work he did do, didn't fit the acceptable scientific narrative and so it is admittedly minimal but any honest person could have found the information posted below in about 30 seconds had they actually been interested in looking for it rather than in being condescending, insulting and in taking any opportunity to discredit real science in favor of the secular, humanistic materialism that passes for science these days.

Peer-reviewed: Enyart's paper on Dobzhansky

Additionally, Walt Brown, a regular contributor to the show, received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.

(For those who wish to know more about Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World by George Mulfinger and Julia Mulfinger Orozco) devotes a chapter to Brown. It may be read by clicking here.)

And there are countless other published, full-time professional scientists who have been interviewed on various subjects and several others that have been debated on the show as well. Virtually all of those debates, by the way, are available for sale on the website, some even decades after they happened, which tells you who won those debates.

Lastly and most importantly, YOU very likely couldn't rationally refute one single point that anyone associated with that website has ever made on either side of any issue that they've ever discussed and so what do you even care about who is and who isn't published or peer reviewed in the first place?!

 

[taisto]

So we have people, who are outside of their field, telling us,with no compromise, that their opinion is true and everyone else is wrong.

It is websites like this that aid in skeptics seeing Christians as intellectually dishonest in regard to science.

 

[CJP69]

So we have people, who are outside of their field, telling us,with no compromise, that their opinion is true and everyone else is wrong.

It is websites like this that aid in skeptics seeing Christians as intellectually dishonest in regard to science.

On the contrary!

I strongly believe, by the way, that you knew what you were saying here was false when you posted it. One wonders just what your motives are! Nothing good, that's for certain.

RSR actually a List of Creation Science Predictions and monitors the science to see whether their predictions come true or they don't and the present the information EITHER way. Also, they are the only site of its kind that I am aware of that has a whole "Errata Page" on the website which is specifically dedicated to pointing out, in detail, when they've made a substantive error (both scientifically and theologically) and openly invite anyone who thinks that they've found an error to contact them about it.

In short, they are about 10,000% more intellectually honest than you are capable of being on your best day.

 

[taisto]

On the contrary!

I strongly believe, by the way, that you knew what you were saying here was false when you posted it. One wonders just what your motives are! Nothing good, that's for certain.

RSR actually a List of Creation Science Predictions and monitors the science to see whether their predictions come true or they don't and the present the information EITHER way. Also, they are the only site of its kind that I am aware of that has a whole "Errata Page" on the website which is specifically dedicated to pointing out, in detail, when they've made a substantive error (both scientifically and theologically) and openly invite anyone who thinks that they've found an error to contact them about it.

In short, they are about 10,000% more intellectually honest than you are capable of being on your best day.

I have, of my knowledge, posted nothing false. I have asked of what scientific rigor the commentaries were developed and I have found that there is little to no scientific rigor from those making their assertions. Therefore they are to be discerned as mere opinions of non-experts.

 

[CJP69]

I have, of my knowledge, posted nothing false.

I simply do not believe you.

At best you make assumptions based on nothing but, it seems clear enough that it is not only intentionally dishonest but overtly hostile. Your goal seems simply to discredit and disparage and you have nothing of any substance to base it on except that you found the site through one of my posts.

I have asked of what scientific rigor the commentaries were developed and I have found that there is little to no scientific rigor from those making their assertions. Therefore they are to be discerned as mere opinions of non-experts.

The scientific rigor of the site is far more than you are capable of producing or even understanding most of, I'd wager. Not that you'll ever find out because you're not honest enough to base such an assessment on the actual material presented rather than on the credentials that your favored secular materialists might provide.

How any christian could discount a Christian website on such a basis, given the current state of things is beyond my ability to comprehend. If you were even half-way paying any attention to the world around you, you'd know that "mere opinions of non-experts" comprises the bulk of what passes for science these days, especially when connected to the theory of evolution and big bang cosmology, which comprises a large percentage of the issues discussed on the site. All it would take is to watch a single episode of what passes for scientific programming on one of the Discovery Channel's network of channels. When secular science isn't question begging nonsense, its pure unabashed guess work. Guessing, by the way, that proves to be wrong almost every single time that actual observational data is collected. While REAL Science Radio, on the other hand, uses the same data but analyses it using a biblical worldview and actual common sense and logic.

 

[taisto]

I simply do not believe you.

At best you make assumptions based on nothing but, it seems clear enough that it is not only intentionally dishonest but overtly hostile. Your goal seems simply to discredit and disparage and you have nothing of any substance to base it on except that you found the site through one of my posts.


The scientific rigor of the site is far more than you are capable of producing or even understanding most of, I'd wager. Not that you'll ever find out because you're not honest enough to base such an assessment on the actual material presented rather than on the credentials that your favored secular materialists might provide.

How any christian could discount a Christian website on such a basis, given the current state of things is beyond my ability to comprehend. If you were even half-way paying any attention to the world around you, you'd know that "mere opinions of non-experts" comprises the bulk of what passes for science these days, especially when connected to the theory of evolution and big bang cosmology, which comprises a large percentage of the issues discussed on the site. All it would take is to watch a single episode of what passes for scientific programming on one of the Discovery Channel's network of channels. When secular science isn't question begging nonsense, its pure unabashed guess work. Guessing, by the way, that proves to be wrong almost every single time that actual observational data is collected. While REAL Science Radio, on the other hand, uses the same data but analyses it using a biblical worldview and actual common sense and logic.

LOL, that's what it comes down to. Your own disbelief is your own problem. You can stop accusing everyone and simply admit that the problem is entirely with your own disbelief.

 

[CJP69]

LOL, that's what it comes down to. Your own disbelief is your own problem. You can stop accusing everyone and simply admit that the problem is entirely with your own disbelief.

I call it as I see it and I, for one, can defend what I believe with sound reason and the plain reading of scripture and do so on a regular basis.

You, on the other hand, run out of substance within two posts, if you ever had any to begin with and then have NOTHING left but insults, condescension and dishonesty.

 

[taisto]

I call it as I see it and I, for one, can defend what I believe with sound reason and the plain reading of scripture and do so on a regular basis.

You, on the other hand, run out of substance within two posts, if you ever had any to begin with and then have NOTHING left but insults, condescension and dishonesty.

LOL, as you see it.
That makes it entirely subjective and of very little value.
Let us know when you are done feeling superior to everyone here.

 

[CJP69]

LOL, as you see it.
That makes it entirely subjective and of very little value.
Let us know when you are done feeling superior to everyone here.

Do you always stop reading posts after the first sentence?

You're so laughably predictable that I'm somewhat embarrassed for you. I mean, I specifically stated that I can defend what I believe with sound reason and scripture precisely because I anticipated you saying something like this!

Here's a hint, Taisto. Calling something as you see it does NOT make it "entirely subjective".

This is me laughing at you! LAUGHING!!!!

It isn't everyone that I feel superior too, its just you and it isn't merely a feeling.

 

[xlsdraw]

LOL, as you see it.
That makes it entirely subjective and of very little value.
Let us know when you are done feeling superior to everyone here.

Take a good look in the mirror hypocrite.