Author Topic: Creation scientists  (Read 35479 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6904
  • Manna: 76
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Creation scientists
« on: Sat Aug 10, 2019 - 12:47:21 »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pk9oDrpf6k

Good video, which points out among other things, that atheist and evolutionary scientists are riding upon the backs of the developments of creation believing scientists. They hijacked scientific methodology and investigation from scientists who believed in God and creation, and now insist that no creationist can be a scientist. Their prophet Darwin, gave them an alternative form of science which eliminated God from the scenario, and now they seek to lord this over all demanding that a creationist cannot be a scientist. This as though faith in the scriptures excludes scientific methodology and investigation, while faith in their prophet Darwin embodies the same.

To the contrary, the reintroduction of the holy scriptures to the people in their vernacular, enlightened minds, aroused curiosities, and paved the way to freedoms and liberties allowing for the development of scientific investigation and methodology by predominantly creation believing scientists. The efforts and progress of the same were hijacked by atheists and evolutionists and applied to the imaginings of the preferred prophet of their faith, Charles Darwin. Now they falsely contend that investigation into the faith based upon the words of their chosen prophet, is science, while investigation into faith based upon the prophets of holy scripture cannot be. BALONEY!

Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6904
  • Manna: 76
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #1 on: Sat Aug 10, 2019 - 15:52:50 »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE

Another good one concerning mathematical problems with Darwin's theory.

Offline The Barbarian

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4129
  • Manna: 140
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #2 on: Sun Aug 11, 2019 - 10:24:30 »
Another good one concerning mathematical problems with Darwin's theory.

Which argument therein do you think is most compelling?    And if you don't understand it well enough to discuss it, what makes you think it's right?


Offline The Barbarian

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4129
  • Manna: 140
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #3 on: Sun Aug 11, 2019 - 10:50:19 »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pk9oDrpf6k

Good video, which points out among other things, that atheist and evolutionary scientists are riding upon the backs of the developments of creation believing scientists.

As you learned, "evolutionary scientists" are also often Christians, who are Bible-believing scientists.    And as Newton freely admitted, he was able to make his discoveries because of the discoveries of the pagan and Islamic scientists who came before him.   Would you like to learn about that?

Quote
They hijacked scientific methodology and investigation from scientists who believed in God and creation,

You've been misled there.   People like Democritus of Abdera and Ibn al-Haytham were the first to use and develop the scientific method.

If asked who gave birth to the modern scientific method, how might you respond? Isaac Newton, maybe? Galileo? Aristotle?

A great many students of science history would probably respond, "Roger Bacon." An English scholar and friar, and a 13th century pioneer in the field of optics, he described, in exquisite detail, a repeating cycle of observation, hypothesis, and experimentation in his writings, as well as the need for independent verification of his work.

But dig a little deeper into the past, and you'll unearth something that may surprise you: The origins of the scientific method hearken back to the Islamic World, not the Western one. Around 250 years before Roger Bacon expounded on the need for experimental confirmation of his findings, an Arab scientist named Ibn al-Haytham was saying the exact same thing.

Little is known about Ibn al-Haytham's life, but historians believe he was born around the year 965, during a period marked as the Golden Age of Arabic science. His father was a civil servant, so the young Ibn al-Haytham received a strong education, which assuredly seeded his passion for science. He was also a devout Muslim, believing that an endless quest for truth about the natural world brought him closer to God. Sometime around the dawn of the 11th Century, he moved to Cairo in Egypt. It was here that he would complete his most influential work.

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/03/the_muslim_scientist_who_birthed_the_scientific_method.html

Democritus was the first to use experimentation to test ideas.  His demonstration, using a watering device to show that air must be a substance composed of atoms, was one of the first documented uses of the scientific method.

Quote
and now insist that no creationist can be a scientist.

No, that's wrong, too.  For example, Stephen Gould once accepted a man he knew to be a YE creationist, as a doctoral candidate.  As he said later, "all that really matters is ability."

Quote
Their prophet Darwin

In science, predictions aren't called "prophesies."   They are called "hypotheses."    And Darwin is considered one of the great scientists of history because so many of his predictions were confirmed, some over a hundred years later.   Would you like to learn about some of them?

Quote
gave them an alternative form of science which eliminated God from the scenario

That would be rather odd, since Darwin wrote that God created the first living things.   

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1872
You were led astray about that, too.

Quote
and now they seek to lord this over all demanding that a creationist cannot be a scientist.

See above.   You're way too willing to believe anyone with a story to tell.

Quote
This as though faith in the scriptures excludes scientific methodology and investigation,

You were unaware that there is a discipline called "forensic theology." 

Quote
while faith in their prophet Darwin embodies the same.

You were lied to about that, as well.   Indeed, Darwin wasn't completely accepted until the 20th century, when his theory got a big boost from the rediscovery of Genetics, and the mechanism of heredity turned out to be Darwinian.

Quote
To the contrary, the reintroduction of the holy scriptures to the people in their vernacular, enlightened minds, aroused curiosities, and paved the way to freedoms and liberties allowing for the development of scientific investigation and methodology by predominantly creation believing scientists.

As you now realize, the founding of modern science was among the Ionian Greeks and the scholars of the Islamic world.   Europeans took this legacy and made it the wonder it is today, as Newton freely admitted.   

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
(Letter to Robt. Hook)
https://discover.hsp.org/Record/dc-9792/Description#tabnav


 

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #3 on: Sun Aug 11, 2019 - 10:50:19 »

Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6904
  • Manna: 76
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #4 on: Sat Aug 17, 2019 - 11:15:13 »
Which argument therein do you think is most compelling?    And if you don't understand it well enough to discuss it, what makes you think it's right?

As always, and as I freely admit, my faith in scripture above human speculation guides my decision process. Human speculations and imaginings have and do continually prove themselves wrong, as the history of evolutionists and evolution clearly establishes. The theory continuously evolves according to the faith of prophet Darwin's followers.

Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6904
  • Manna: 76
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #5 on: Sat Aug 17, 2019 - 11:36:37 »
Quote
As you learned, "evolutionary scientists" are also often Christians, who are Bible-believing scientists.    And as Newton freely admitted, he was able to make his discoveries because of the discoveries of the pagan and Islamic scientists who came before him.   Would you like to learn about that?

"Christian evolutionary scientists" have no choice but to deny much of the bible as fairy tale or allegory which apparently cannot be explained.

Muslims and most pagans were and are creationists, just proscribing the creation to different gods in different ways. So this changes nothing. "Christian evolutionists" obviously count God in on an unbiblical form of creation, thus do not completely hijack the work of creation believers before them. They just cast doubt upon the scriptures as a reliable source of historical accuracy. The OP is addressing those how insist that creationists cannot be scientists. Are you of this opinion? If not, then what are you arguing.

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13938
  • Manna: 333
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #6 on: Sat Aug 17, 2019 - 11:48:51 »
As always, and as I freely admit, my faith in scripture above human speculation guides my decision process. Human speculations and imaginings have and do continually prove themselves wrong, as the history of evolutionists and evolution clearly establishes. The theory continuously evolves according to the faith of prophet Darwin's followers.
Do you not understand that your faith in scripture is based in large part on your "human" speculation?

Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6904
  • Manna: 76
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #7 on: Sat Aug 17, 2019 - 12:05:34 »
Quote
You've been misled there.   People like Democritus of Abdera and Ibn al-Haytham were the first to use and develop the scientific method.

Do you really think you know who were the first to use and develop scientific method? As though such were recorded when it happened. I thought you are a bible believer.

Ecc 1:9  The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. 10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. 11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

Recorded history is a very small fraction of actual history. It is often lost or destroyed, and as often not believed as "Christian evolutionists" do not believe the creation account as given in Genesis. Nor the flood account, and therefore discount an entire civilization which no doubt included great accomplishments possibly even ahead of our own. These two points alone reveal the vast difference of opinions which have, can, and do arise between the scientific observations of creationists and evolutionists. The latter being more dependent upon prophets of human speculation, while the latter upon prophets who claimed their source to be the God of holy scripture.

Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6904
  • Manna: 76
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #8 on: Sat Aug 17, 2019 - 12:15:18 »
Do you not understand that your faith in scripture is based in large part on your "human" speculation?

Yes, my human speculation that the prophets of scripture received their testimony form God, in contrast to those who think otherwise and rely more upon prophets who place more faith in their own or other speculations  with no claim of the same.

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13938
  • Manna: 333
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #9 on: Sat Aug 17, 2019 - 12:41:03 »
Yes, my human speculation that the prophets of scripture received their testimony form God, in contrast to those who think otherwise and rely more upon prophets who place more faith in their own or other speculations  with no claim of the same.
That the prophets of scripture received their testimony from God is not speculation; that is what God says.  Your speculation comes with your assumption that you know better than others what God meant by the testimony He gave to the prophets.

I will give you a perfect example of that.  You "speculate" that the testimony in Genesis that the flood covered the earth it means the entire global earth.  But then you "speculate" that the testimony in Genesis that people from all the earth came to get food from Joseph because of the drought doesn't mean the entire global earth. You "speculate" on the meaning of words to suit your own speculative faith.

Offline The Barbarian

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4129
  • Manna: 140
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #10 on: Sat Aug 17, 2019 - 15:52:31 »
Barbarian asks:
Which argument therein do you think is most compelling?    And if you don't understand it well enough to discuss it, what makes you think it's right?

As always, and as I freely admit, my faith in scripture above human speculation guides my decision process. Human speculations and imaginings have and do continually prove themselves wrong, as the history of evolutionists and evolution clearly establishes. The theory continuously evolves according to the faith of prophet Darwin's followers.

So you are going with this guys speculations and imaginings, even though you don't understand them?


Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6904
  • Manna: 76
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #11 on: Sun Aug 18, 2019 - 11:52:03 »
That the prophets of scripture received their testimony from God is not speculation; that is what God says.  Your speculation comes with your assumption that you know better than others what God meant by the testimony He gave to the prophets.

I will give you a perfect example of that.  You "speculate" that the testimony in Genesis that the flood covered the earth it means the entire global earth.  But then you "speculate" that the testimony in Genesis that people from all the earth came to get food from Joseph because of the drought doesn't mean the entire global earth. You "speculate" on the meaning of words to suit your own speculative faith.

First and foremost, at least my speculations are concerning things that are actually said in scripture, while evolutionists speculations are 100% speculation as far as scripture is considered. There is simply nothing at all in scripture even hinting of such a thing.

Gen 6:17  And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Gen 7:4  For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

Gen 7:17  And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 18  And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19  And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20  Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21  And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22  All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23  And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.


You choose to believe the above statements that everything on the earth died repeated several times, really means everything in just one place on earth. That is not what it says, that is what you speculate it says, contrary to what it plainly states several times. So, do you believe that every time the bible refers to the whole world, it only really means one part of the world? If not, how do you determine when it is one or the other? Is it not by context? Does not the repeated and specific declarations concerning the whole earth and all life on it, suggest that the point of repetition is to clarify the literalness of what is being declared?

There are two different words interpreted as earth in the two different accounts you speak of. Nevertheless, context is the most important element I would speculate. You and I probably disagree concerning the famine during Joseph's day as well.

Gen 41:54  And the seven years of dearth began to come, according as Joseph had said: and the dearth was in all lands; but in all the land of Egypt there was bread. 55  And when all the land of Egypt was famished, the people cried to Pharaoh for bread: and Pharaoh said unto all the Egyptians, Go unto Joseph; what he saith to you, do. 56 And the famine was over all the face of the earth: And Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt. 57  And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.

I take it that repeating that the famine was in all lands and countries several times, means it was. However, there were far less peopled and inhabited lands or countries at that time in earths history, due to the global flood which had destroyed all flesh. Nor were they nearly as dispersed and or spread out as before the flood, or today of course. Therefore was it much easier for the peoples of all lands to go to Egypt for food. No doubt, the famine was more and less severe at different times and places during the seven years as well as the context seems to suggest as well. So not everyone had to go to Egypt all through the seven years. These things are different to you of course, because you speculate that only part of the earth and I presume some people and or animals died in the flood. I take it that repetition concerning certain details is for emphasis regarding those details, apparently you do not.

Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6904
  • Manna: 76
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #12 on: Sun Aug 18, 2019 - 12:04:26 »
Barbarian asks:
Which argument therein do you think is most compelling?    And if you don't understand it well enough to discuss it, what makes you think it's right?

So you are going with this guys speculations and imaginings, even though you don't understand them?

No, I'm going with the words spoken from the mouth of God, and written with His own finger in stone twice, because I believe the bible.

Exo 20:8  Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9  Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10  But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Who said I do not understand? I understand complexity and statistical probabilities. So do these guys you refer to, much better than I and no doubt you. They believe the bible as well and see no contradiction between literal creation and the facts of science. 

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13938
  • Manna: 333
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #13 on: Sun Aug 18, 2019 - 14:50:44 »
There are two different words interpreted as earth in the two different accounts you speak of.

Gen 6:17  For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth [Hebrew -'erets] to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die.

Gen 41:57  Moreover, all the earth [Hebrew -'erets] came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth.


Same Hebrew word in both places.

Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6904
  • Manna: 76
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #14 on: Sat Aug 24, 2019 - 14:51:58 »
I guess it depends upon which earth you are reading from which verse.

Gen 6:7  And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Gen 7:4  For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.


Strong's Hebrew Lexicon Search Results

127 'adamah ad-aw-maw' from 119; soil (from its general redness):--country, earth, ground, husband(-man) (-ry), land.

Gen 41:56  And the famine was over all the face of the earth: And Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt.

Strong's Hebrew Lexicon Search Results

776 'erets eh'-rets from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land):--X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X natins, way, + wilderness, world.

Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6904
  • Manna: 76
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #15 on: Sun Aug 25, 2019 - 10:30:20 »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zMf_czmebQ

Good video. A little lengthy but worth sticking with to the end. After explaining the evolutionary view, the speaker addresses problems arising from that view and new information or observations.

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13938
  • Manna: 333
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #16 on: Sun Aug 25, 2019 - 14:47:26 »
I guess it depends upon which earth you are reading from which verse.
There is more than one?

Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6904
  • Manna: 76
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #17 on: Sun Aug 25, 2019 - 19:52:56 »
There is more than one?

The lexicon words and definitions below the bible verses I provided were the Hebrew word used for earth in said verses and their definitions.

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13938
  • Manna: 333
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #18 on: Mon Aug 26, 2019 - 05:12:19 »
The lexicon words and definitions below the bible verses I provided were the Hebrew word used for earth in said verses and their definitions.
One of the questions that has to be answered is what is/was the meaning of the Hebrew word when it was written.  As I pointed out the same Hebrew word was used to describe the flood as was used to describe the incident with Joseph.  But you have decided that that same word meant totally different things.  And you are adamant about that decision and declare anyone that disagrees with your assessment to be wrong, nearly to the point of being a nonbeliever.  You do that a lot and you are wrong.

Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6904
  • Manna: 76
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #19 on: Mon Aug 26, 2019 - 22:20:46 »
One of the questions that has to be answered is what is/was the meaning of the Hebrew word when it was written.  As I pointed out the same Hebrew word was used to describe the flood as was used to describe the incident with Joseph.  But you have decided that that same word meant totally different things.  And you are adamant about that decision and declare anyone that disagrees with your assessment to be wrong, nearly to the point of being a nonbeliever.  You do that a lot and you are wrong.

I do not think they mean two different things. Just both different than what you take them to mean. Context is important.


Gen 6:17  And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Gen 7:4  For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

Gen 7:17  And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 18  And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19  And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20  Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21  And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22  All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.


Gen 41:54  And the seven years of dearth began to come, according as Joseph had said: and the dearth was in all lands; but in all the land of Egypt there was bread. 55  And when all the land of Egypt was famished, the people cried to Pharaoh for bread: and Pharaoh said unto all the Egyptians, Go unto Joseph; what he saith to you, do. 56 And the famine was over all the face of the earth: And Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt. 57  And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.

You simply ignore the repeated specific details because you do not like the logical conclusion they lead to.


« Last Edit: Mon Aug 26, 2019 - 22:23:05 by Amo »

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13938
  • Manna: 333
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #20 on: Tue Aug 27, 2019 - 05:30:07 »
I do not think they mean two different things. Just both different than what you take them to mean. Context is important.
Yes it is. And what is the context? A big part of the context is the the setting, the ancient near east, for which the entire world was contained in and around the Mediterranean Sea.  The concept of a global earth nearly 8,000 miles in diameter was as far out of the context as you could get.

Offline The Barbarian

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4129
  • Manna: 140
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #21 on: Fri Aug 30, 2019 - 14:11:23 »
Do you really think you know who were the first to use and develop scientific method? As though such were recorded when it happened. I thought you are a bible believer.

Ecc 1:9  The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. 10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. 11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

That's not scientific method.  Do you know what scientific method is?   The first person to use anything like it was Democritus of Abdera, and the first person to codify it into a formal procedure was  Ibn al-Haytham.   From him, Roger Bacon brought it to Europe.
 

Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6904
  • Manna: 76
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #22 on: Sat Aug 31, 2019 - 14:44:09 »
That's not scientific method.  Do you know what scientific method is?   The first person to use anything like it was Democritus of Abdera, and the first person to codify it into a formal procedure was  Ibn al-Haytham.   From him, Roger Bacon brought it to Europe.

I think you missed my point.

Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6904
  • Manna: 76
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #23 on: Sat Aug 31, 2019 - 15:08:37 »
Yes it is. And what is the context? A big part of the context is the the setting, the ancient near east, for which the entire world was contained in and around the Mediterranean Sea.  The concept of a global earth nearly 8,000 miles in diameter was as far out of the context as you could get.

Yea, that's the ticket. God who inspired Moses writings, had no idea of the size and diameter of the world. The bible was written by intellectually inferior men to yourself, who didn't know these things either. Presumption is, as presumption does.


Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6904
  • Manna: 76
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #24 on: Sun Sep 01, 2019 - 11:36:26 »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msSbxCq70uc

A little dated, but a good video addressing out of place fossils which wreak havoc upon the theory of evolution.
I was not aware of the extent to which the human footprints along side of dinosaur prints found in Texas, had been examined by creationists. Evolutionist of course trash or deny all such evidence, and or testimony regarding even their own actions pertaining to it. Bottom line is, some one is lying.

Offline The Barbarian

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4129
  • Manna: 140
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #25 on: Mon Sep 02, 2019 - 13:45:14 »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msSbxCq70uc

A little dated, but a good video addressing out of place fossils which wreak havoc upon the theory of evolution.
I was not aware of the extent to which the human footprints along side of dinosaur prints found in Texas, had been examined by creationists.


Indeed, the "man-tracks" were debunked as errors and frauds not by "evolutionists", but by YE creationists from Loma Linda University.  Would you like to hear how that happened?



Rusch, Wilbert H., Sr., 1971, "Human Footprints in Rock," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 201-213. In this article Rusch stated, "among creationist groups there is often considerable misplaced enthusiasm on the [man track] subject, with too great a willingness to jump to unjustified conclusions." Although his article focused on "man track" claims in locations other than the Paluxy, Rusch stated he would investigate the Paluxy claims, and make another report "should the results prove fruitful." He made no subsequent report. In 1981 Rusch related to me over the phone that he had visited the Paluxy sites in 1970 and 1971, and found "no definitive evidence" of human tracks. Ernest Booth (now deceased) investigated the Paluxy sites in 1970. Although Booth did not publish his findings, he related to me through letters and phone conversations that he agreed that the Taylor Site tracks were dinosaurian, and had found that the alleged human tracks on other sites were related to spurious phenomena. In a letter to me (dated November 29, 1981) Booth wrote, "Creationists have lost a lot of credibility over these so-called human tracks in the Paluxy... they are not human tracks at all...and many of them are not even tracks of any kind...We don't need this kind of evidence to support creation...."
...
During the early 1980's I repeatedly urged the Institute for Creation Research to come to Glen Rose to reexamine the "man tracks" on the Taylor Site. Shortly before I was about to publish my study results, John Morris finally took me up on my invitations, and, along with representatives of Films for Christ (invited by Morris), met me in October and November of 1985 at the Paluxy sites, where we viewed and discussed the evidence together. As a result of these meetings, ICR recently published an Impact article,[16] admitting that the Taylor Trail appears "obviously, dinosaurian," and that "none of the four trails at the Taylor Site can be today regarded as unquestionably human."

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/tsite.htm

Even before the film Footprints in Stone was released, the Taylor Site was studied by a another team of creationist scientists from Loma Linda University.[5] In contrast to the "man track" claims of the Taylor crew, the Loma Linda team concluded in their published report that several of the tracks in the Taylor Trail showed indications of dinosaurian digits, and that the tracks were probably the eroded remains of three-toed dinosaur tracks, although they did not adequately explain how the tracks acquired their very elongated shape. Other creationists, such as Dr. Ernest Booth of Outdoor Pictures, Inc., and Wilbert Rusch, president of the Creation Research Society, also visited the site soon after the tracks site was first exposed, and expressed skepticism about the "man track" claims
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html

Quote
Evolutionist of course trash or deny all such evidence,


Those guys are creationists.   They trashed the evidence because they didn't want creationism associated with such foolishness.

Quote
and or testimony regarding even their own actions pertaining to it. Bottom line is, some one is lying.


There were some frauds.   At one time, you could order a "man track" from locals who took advantage of gullible people by carving out feet in chunks of rock. But mostly, it's wishful thinking and self-delusion. Not all creationists fell for it, as you see.





 

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13938
  • Manna: 333
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #26 on: Mon Sep 02, 2019 - 14:28:11 »
Yea, that's the ticket. God who inspired Moses writings, had no idea of the size and diameter of the world. The bible was written by intellectually inferior men to yourself, who didn't know these things either. Presumption is, as presumption does.
God did but Moses didn't and neither did anyone reading what Moses wrote or hearing what Moses taught.  The earth to them was that small little bit of the near east that they were aware of and had heard about; no more and no less.  But more to the point, neither of the Hebrew words that have been translated "earth" could have possibly meant the global earth.  They had no concept of the global earth. The presumptions here are all yours, Amo.

Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6904
  • Manna: 76
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #27 on: Wed Sep 04, 2019 - 20:46:47 »
Indeed, the "man-tracks" were debunked as errors and frauds not by "evolutionists", but by YE creationists from Loma Linda University.  Would you like to hear how that happened?



Rusch, Wilbert H., Sr., 1971, "Human Footprints in Rock," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 201-213. In this article Rusch stated, "among creationist groups there is often considerable misplaced enthusiasm on the [man track] subject, with too great a willingness to jump to unjustified conclusions." Although his article focused on "man track" claims in locations other than the Paluxy, Rusch stated he would investigate the Paluxy claims, and make another report "should the results prove fruitful." He made no subsequent report. In 1981 Rusch related to me over the phone that he had visited the Paluxy sites in 1970 and 1971, and found "no definitive evidence" of human tracks. Ernest Booth (now deceased) investigated the Paluxy sites in 1970. Although Booth did not publish his findings, he related to me through letters and phone conversations that he agreed that the Taylor Site tracks were dinosaurian, and had found that the alleged human tracks on other sites were related to spurious phenomena. In a letter to me (dated November 29, 1981) Booth wrote, "Creationists have lost a lot of credibility over these so-called human tracks in the Paluxy... they are not human tracks at all...and many of them are not even tracks of any kind...We don't need this kind of evidence to support creation...."
...
During the early 1980's I repeatedly urged the Institute for Creation Research to come to Glen Rose to reexamine the "man tracks" on the Taylor Site. Shortly before I was about to publish my study results, John Morris finally took me up on my invitations, and, along with representatives of Films for Christ (invited by Morris), met me in October and November of 1985 at the Paluxy sites, where we viewed and discussed the evidence together. As a result of these meetings, ICR recently published an Impact article,[16] admitting that the Taylor Trail appears "obviously, dinosaurian," and that "none of the four trails at the Taylor Site can be today regarded as unquestionably human."

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/tsite.htm

Even before the film Footprints in Stone was released, the Taylor Site was studied by a another team of creationist scientists from Loma Linda University.[5] In contrast to the "man track" claims of the Taylor crew, the Loma Linda team concluded in their published report that several of the tracks in the Taylor Trail showed indications of dinosaurian digits, and that the tracks were probably the eroded remains of three-toed dinosaur tracks, although they did not adequately explain how the tracks acquired their very elongated shape. Other creationists, such as Dr. Ernest Booth of Outdoor Pictures, Inc., and Wilbert Rusch, president of the Creation Research Society, also visited the site soon after the tracks site was first exposed, and expressed skepticism about the "man track" claims
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html

Those guys are creationists.   They trashed the evidence because they didn't want creationism associated with such foolishness.

There were some frauds.   At one time, you could order a "man track" from locals who took advantage of gullible people by carving out feet in chunks of rock. But mostly, it's wishful thinking and self-delusion. Not all creationists fell for it, as you see.


Like I said, bottom line, someone is lying. The details provided in the video if true, are proof enough of their point. If not, they're in trouble.

Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6904
  • Manna: 76
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #28 on: Wed Sep 04, 2019 - 21:18:55 »
God did but Moses didn't and neither did anyone reading what Moses wrote or hearing what Moses taught.  The earth to them was that small little bit of the near east that they were aware of and had heard about; no more and no less.  But more to the point, neither of the Hebrew words that have been translated "earth" could have possibly meant the global earth.  They had no concept of the global earth. The presumptions here are all yours, Amo.

Like I said, presumption is as presumption does. I feel certain, that if you are ever privileged enough to meet Moses, you will find he was never as ignorant as you believe he was. To the contrary, you will find that this chosen instrument of God who spent a whole lot of time in the literal presence of God, understood and comprehended things far beyond you.

Exo 24:9  Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: 10  And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. 11  And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink. 12  And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them. 13  And Moses rose up, and his minister Joshua: and Moses went up into the mount of God. 14  And he said unto the elders, Tarry ye here for us, until we come again unto you: and, behold, Aaron and Hur are with you: if any man have any matters to do, let him come unto them. 15  And Moses went up into the mount, and a cloud covered the mount. 16  And the glory of the LORD abode upon mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days: and the seventh day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud. 17  And the sight of the glory of the LORD was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel. 18  And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights.

Exo 34:28  And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. 29  And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him. 30  And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him. 31  And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned unto him: and Moses talked with them. 32  And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh: and he gave them in commandment all that the LORD had spoken with him in mount Sinai. 33  And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face. 34 But when Moses went in before the LORD to speak with him, he took the vail off, until he came out. And he came out, and spake unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded. 35  And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face shone: and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him.


You think Moses was ignorant, no offense intended, but I think you are ignorant. I think a man who spent so much time in the literal presence of God who didn't even need to eat or drink for forty days, and basically shined brightly with the glory of God afterward, knew a whole lot more than your ignorance will allow for.

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13938
  • Manna: 333
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #29 on: Thu Sep 05, 2019 - 05:25:30 »
You think Moses was ignorant, no offense intended, but I think you are ignorant.
Oh of course.  The old Amo straw man.  I didn't say Moses was ignorant; at least in the way you think of it.  That one is one you Amo.

Offline The Barbarian

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4129
  • Manna: 140
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #30 on: Thu Sep 05, 2019 - 15:28:03 »
Seems to me,  God told Moses that which He wanted to be passed on to the Israelites.   The precise nature of genetics and evolution seem to have not been among those things He wanted to be passed on.


Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6904
  • Manna: 76
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #31 on: Fri Sep 06, 2019 - 08:18:31 »
Oh of course.  The old Amo straw man.  I didn't say Moses was ignorant; at least in the way you think of it.  That one is one you Amo.

No, you did say -

Quote
God did but Moses didn't and neither did anyone reading what Moses wrote or hearing what Moses taught.  The earth to them was that small little bit of the near east that they were aware of and had heard about; no more and no less.

Emphasis in above quote is mine.

You project the above ignorance upon them, because of your own chosen ignorance in limiting the confines of scripture to your own imaginings and speculations. You have chosen faith in the vain imaginings and speculations of fallen humanities theory of evolution, over the plain testimony of scripture regarding the creation and flood accounts. Therefore it is necessary to you, that the creation account is allegorical, and the flood account was local and not global. Therefore is it also necessary that Moses and Peter, and all of humanity were ignorant concerning things which small children see and understand today according to the supposed superior knowledge of the day. These are the limitations you have placed upon yourself through your misplaced faith in the speculations of fallen humanity, above the testimony of scripture, not mine or theirs. Those who place their faith in God's word above all else, are not subject to the ignorance of those who place their faith elsewhere. Likewise, those who place their faith in the speculations and theories of humanity, view those who believe scripture as above such, are ignorant for doing so. In the end, the major difference between these two faiths, will be seen as all encompassing as they truly are.

Make no mistake about it, God created and sustains this entire world. He destroyed this entire world once before, and He will destroy it once again as He has proclaimed. The ignorance of fallen humanity whether genuine or chosen did not stop the first destruction, and will not stop the destruction which is to come according to God's sure word.

2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.....................

2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. 4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;.....

2Pe 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.


Moses and Peter were not ignorant men as you suppose, who knew nothing beyond their immediate surroundings or situations. These presumptions are faulty reasoning based upon the willing ignorance the apostle and prophet Peter foretold in the above scriptures.

 

Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6904
  • Manna: 76
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #32 on: Fri Sep 06, 2019 - 08:27:42 »
Seems to me,  God told Moses that which He wanted to be passed on to the Israelites.   The precise nature of genetics and evolution seem to have not been among those things He wanted to be passed on.

Of course not. God does not lie. Nor does He need to create fairy tales to express truth. Evolution, Not. Genetics, we are far from precisely understanding, accepting among those with exaggerated confidence in our abilities apart fro God.

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13938
  • Manna: 333
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #33 on: Fri Sep 06, 2019 - 08:30:04 »
Moses and Peter were not ignorant men as you suppose, who knew nothing beyond their immediate surroundings or situations. These presumptions are faulty reasoning based upon the willing ignorance the apostle and prophet Peter foretold in the above scriptures.
And you, my dear Amo, do not even know the meaning of the word "ignorant".  Look it up in the dictionary.  Obviously Moses and Peter were men ignorant about a lot of things, just like the rest of us.  I am lacking in knowledge and/or training of a lot of things, just as you are.  Amo, ignorant and stupid do not the mean the same thing.  Neither Moses nor Peter were stupid men, but they were ignorant about a lot of things.  Does the fact that you do not know or understand that make you ignorant or stupid? You answer.

Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6904
  • Manna: 76
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #34 on: Fri Sep 06, 2019 - 13:44:00 »
And you, my dear Amo, do not even know the meaning of the word "ignorant".  Look it up in the dictionary.  Obviously Moses and Peter were men ignorant about a lot of things, just like the rest of us.  I am lacking in knowledge and/or training of a lot of things, just as you are.  Amo, ignorant and stupid do not the mean the same thing.  Neither Moses nor Peter were stupid men, but they were ignorant about a lot of things.  Does the fact that you do not know or understand that make you ignorant or stupid? You answer.

Who said anything about ignorant and stupid meaning the same thing? You're the one bringing stupid into the conversation. I haven't called anyone stupid, or addressed stupidity. Unless of course, you believe that willing ignorance amounts to stupidity, which may very well be under certain circumstance no doubt. Nevertheless, I didn't go there, you did.