The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Mistress 69 · 18-05-2011 10:07pm

J C wrote: »

I can see how you could get depressed by the thread ... if you want to hold onto the (unfounded) idea that there is no God ... try going with the flow ... and where the evidence is leading ... it's quite exciting to realise your Father created the entire Universe and everything therein ... and you are loved deeply by Him!!!:)

In agreement here totally ! :P

himnextdoor · 19-05-2011 3:45am

Soul Winner wrote: »

Do I?

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. "Billions and Billions of Demons" - 'Richard Lewontin PhD Zoology Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at Harvard University'

Well Darwin tried to explain how special creation ... blah blah blah!

I see where you are going wrong; you know how visible light is a very narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum? Well 'existence', that is all forms of existence, can be likened to the electromagnetic spectrum and life is a narrow band of existence. Just as there is an infinite range of 'electromagnetic frequencies', there are an infinite range of forms of existence some of which have the characeristics of life.

Don't you see how infinite variety can give rise to all possibilities?

So, instead of thinking in terms of 'first there was nothing and then there was everything equals the existence of God', you should be thinking in terms of 'first there was nothing and the there was everything equals some inherent property of 'nothingness'.

Do you see now?

Soul Winner · 19-05-2011 4:51pm

himnextdoor wrote: »

I see where you are going wrong; you know how visible light is a very narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum? Well 'existence', that is all forms of existence, can be likened to the electromagnetic spectrum and life is a narrow band of existence. Just as there is an infinite range of 'electromagnetic frequencies', there are an infinite range of forms of existence some of which have the characeristics of life.

Don't you see how infinite variety can give rise to all possibilities?

So, instead of thinking in terms of 'first there was nothing and then there was everything equals the existence of God', you should be thinking in terms of 'first there was nothing and the there was everything equals some inherent property of 'nothingness'.

Do you see now?

But there is no inherent property in nothingness. If there was then it wouldn't be nothingness, because for there to exist a property of it then it (nothingness) is something. But nothingness isn't anything, or better still, nothingness isn't.

And assuming that your statement/question: "Don't you see how infinite variety can give rise to all possibilities?" is true, then God existing is also one of those possibilities. Yes?

himnextdoor · 19-05-2011 7:53pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

But there is no inherent property in nothingness. If there was then it wouldn't be nothingness, because for there to exist a property of it then it (nothingness) is something. But nothingness isn't anything, or better still, nothingness isn't.

And assuming that your statement/question: "Don't you see how infinite variety can give rise to all possibilities?" is true, then God existing is also one of those possibilities. Yes?

Yes. I have never said otherwise and have suggested that there may be a single fundamental force in the universe from which all other forces are derived which I would be happy for science to name as God, Yahweh, Allah, Jehovah, Ganesh or even, as I would prefer, Ronin.

I would be happy to settle on 'the force that causes continuous change' as a definition for God.

What I can't accept is the possibility of a divine plan that concerns all of creation and is reliant on human behaviour; that the universe was created in order to test whether or not I would help old ladies across the road.

I think the universe is constantly changing and that it is a process of decay at all scales; the decay at the lower scale provides energy that supports and slows down the decay at a higher scale. We don't need a divine planner for that.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 05-06-2011 5:31pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8

Hello, what is creationisms stance on Ring Species?

Zombrex · 06-06-2011 2:50am

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8

Hello, what is creationisms stance on Ring Species?

Great video, he always sums things up so well.

Morbert · 06-06-2011 3:32am

Soul Winner wrote: »

But there is no inherent property in nothingness. If there was then it wouldn't be nothingness, because for there to exist a property of it then it (nothingness) is something. But nothingness isn't anything, or better still, nothingness isn't.

This is where we run into language difficulties. People can mean different things when they say nothing. Stephen Hawking frequently discusses the universe emerging from nothing. But he does not actually mean nothing, and I dislike such a use of the word. Scientists can model "emptiness" (a vacuum state), but this emptiness still has a structure, and can still be described by physical laws. This emptiness can produce new particles and, theoretically new universes. So when a scientists says something from nothing, they do not actually mean nothing. They mean something that looks like nothing, but actually has a deep structure, and can cause phenomena like the birth of universes.

bridgetown1 · 06-06-2011 7:48pm

has anybody actually read all 1631 pages of this thread???

Fanny Cradock · 06-06-2011 8:01pm

Of course we read them! Have you not

Genghiz Cohen · 08-06-2011 10:57am

bridgetown1 wrote: »

has anybody actually read all 1631 pages of this thread???

Sometimes I think some people haven't...
*cough J C cough*

wolfsbane · 08-06-2011 7:34pm

Wickie
Some time ago we discussed claims and counter-claims of creationist scientists being harassed in their jobs. I undertook to check some of these.

I read up on some of them, and came to the conclusion that it would need a Public Enquiry to verify who said what to whom and when. Even then, the motivations would be open to question in much of it.

So it seems to me futile to continue making the claim of harassment, unless one can point to the damning evidence. Harassment may well be true, but one needs enough proof to make it stand up in court. It may be just a poor performance that caused the sanction.

A reason I suspect much of it is genuine harassment is the attitude exhibited by several academics - that creationists should be forced out, or not allowed in to begin with. If that attitude is held by any of the heads of department, etc, then one would expect harassment to occur.

Anyway, I'll not raise any claims until I have sufficient proof of guilt. I may point to an amazing coincidence or two, and leave it to be pondered on.

***************************************************************************
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.

wolfsbane · 08-06-2011 8:03pm

This vid gives a very well-worded summary of the Biblical explanation of fossils:
CHECK THIS OUT - FOSSILS
http://www.theveracityproject.com/store/index.php/films/check-this-out-fossils.html

****************************************************************************
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

Morbert · 08-06-2011 9:21pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

This vid gives a very well-worded summary of the Biblical explanation of fossils:
CHECK THIS OUT - FOSSILS
http://www.theveracityproject.com/store/index.php/films/check-this-out-fossils.html

Huge problems with that video (which have all been dealt with before).

It's not simply about worldviews. Evolution makes stark predictions about where we should find fossils. We expect to find a very precise structure of both temporal and geographical fossil distributions. If the fossil record doesn't match up to the geographic distribution of animals (i.e. If fossils were just randomly buried in some catastrophic flood) then evolution is false. Instead, we find an ordered structure to the fossils and their locations, which in no way implies a catastrophic flood. Similarly, the distribution of life on earth in no way implies a radial emergence from some Ark.

Zombrex · 09-06-2011 11:36am

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wickie
Some time ago we discussed claims and counter-claims of creationist scientists being harassed in their jobs. I undertook to check some of these.

I read up on some of them, and came to the conclusion that it would need a Public Enquiry to verify who said what to whom and when. Even then, the motivations would be open to question in much of it.

So it seems to me futile to continue making the claim of harassment, unless one can point to the damning evidence. Harassment may well be true, but one needs enough proof to make it stand up in court. It may be just a poor performance that caused the sanction.

A reason I suspect much of it is genuine harassment is the attitude exhibited by several academics - that creationists should be forced out, or not allowed in to begin with. If that attitude is held by any of the heads of department, etc, then one would expect harassment to occur.

Anyway, I'll not raise any claims until I have sufficient proof of guilt. I may point to an amazing coincidence or two, and leave it to be pondered on.

Good stuff

I think some of the attitude you mention is explained by a simple issue, that being that Creationism isn't considered science by most people.

I know you disagree with that statement, but ultimately that is some what irrelevant. If you work for an institution such as a university then you will go on what they consider to be science. If someone disagrees and works on a different notion, not matter what that is, then this can be easily classified as simply not doing your job properly.

If for example an atheist biologists turned up at Liberty university and refused to teach Biblical creationism in their biology class they would be no doubt disciplined. If that person said "Well it is not science!" Liberty University would probably just say "It is in this institution". While people may think it is terrible that Liberty University teaches Creationism, I don't think anyone would have much grounds to say that this atheist biologists has a leg to stand on if they refused to follow Liberty's standards yet still expected to be employed by the university.

The same principle holds in the real world

Whether or not an individual feels something is or isn't science they have a responsibility to teach to the standards of the institution they are teaching at. If a Creationist refuses to do this they should not be surprised if they do not advance, or face disciplinary actions. The standards are not decided by the individual lecture, they do not set the rules for the institution based on a consensus of the wider community. The Creationist community set that standard for Liberty University. The wider scientific community set that standard for institutions like Caltech Harvard MIT etc.

Despite this Creationists seem to have been given huge leeway in how they can approach these classes, only having actions taken against them when they really take the piss.

Zombrex · 09-06-2011 11:47am

wolfsbane wrote: »

This vid gives a very well-worded summary of the Biblical explanation of fossils:
CHECK THIS OUT - FOSSILS
http://www.theveracityproject.com/store/index.php/films/check-this-out-fossils.html

****************************************************************************
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

As has already been explained science is not simple a process of interpretation.

Scientists do not simply sit around going "I wonder what would explain this" and then come up with an idea and say "This is the theory now!"

Science requires testable models. The key bit there is testable. The model must make a series of predictions that must match observational evidence, which includes the fossil record.

It should not be necessary to explain this again, but the "lens of God's word" is not science. Looking at the fossil record and interpreting it in a manner that is consistent with the Bible is not science. Not because of the Bible bit, but because it is not producing testable models.

Creationist have not produced a series of models that accurately predict modern geography in a scientific manner. By that I mean in detail, not simply saying well the flood would have changed the landscape, look! we have a changed landscape.

No Creationists theory of this flood can explain in scientific detail how these rock layers managed to layer themselves in the way they did with the fossils distributed in the way they are.

On the other hand modern theories of physics do, they explain it in vast detail, making accurate predictions of how the rock layers formed, how they move and warp under head and pressure, how they slide into the mantle and back out again etc etc.

As Robin likes to say when oil men are going out to find oil they don't use Creationism to figure out where the oil will be. They use modern science. There is a reason for that, and it isn't ideological, it is practical. They want to find the oil. If Creationism helped them do that they would use creationism. It doesn't because it doesn't model at any level of accuracy, the formation of rock layers and the biological remains found in them.

ISAW · 10-06-2011 10:56am

Wicknight wrote: »

As has already been explained science is not simple a process of interpretation.

Scientists do not simply sit around going "I wonder what would explain this" and then come up with an idea and say "This is the theory now!"

This is debatable. One can assert hypothesis preceedes tsting but hypothesis is theory laden. the theory itself may in turn on observation.

http://www.herinst.org/envcrisis/science/method.html

Science requires testable models. The key bit there is testable.

Empirical science maybe. But for example how do you test wormhole theory or parallel universe theory ( all part of modern science).

We can have models of parallel universes which are not testable.

The model must make a series of predictions that must match observational evidence, which includes the fossil record.

Yes but not for all science. See also http://www.herinst.org/envcrisis/science/method/myth.html

Observation may be culturally influenced.

It should not be necessary to explain this again, but the "lens of God's word" is not science. Looking at the fossil record and interpreting it in a manner that is consistent with the Bible is not science. Not because of the Bible bit, but because it is not producing testable models.

How is wormhole theory or parallel universe theory testable?

Creationist have not produced a series of models that accurately predict modern geography in a scientific manner.

To be more logically accurate they show not have a conformational theory since one can go on forever trying to verify. The important thing to ask here is probably "what test could I do which it was possible to get an outcome which if it came out that way - opposed to what you expect- would convince you your theory is wrong?"

If the person can't propose a falsification test one can argue their theory is not science.

By that I mean in detail, not simply saying well the flood would have changed the landscape, look! we have a changed landscape.

Ah but that is "affirming a consequent"
i.e. all communists have beards
you have a beard
therefore I illogically conclude you are a communist

What we need in the abiove case is a test which the poster agrees to which we can do and which would show the flood did not happen. If the poster expects the test to show negative and it shows positive then they have to accept it did not happen as they expected.

If they can't propose such a test one can argue they are not making a scientific argument.

No Creationists theory of this flood can explain in scientific detail how these rock layers managed to layer themselves in the way they did with the fossils distributed in the way they are.

They could! They could say "God intervened and did it" but again this is not falsifiable and is therefore based on faith not evidence.

On the other hand modern theories of physics do, they explain it in vast detail, making accurate predictions of how the rock layers formed, how they move and warp under head and pressure, how they slide into the mantle and back out again etc etc.

They also model wormholes and parallel universes which can't be measured!

As Robin likes to say when oil men are going out to find oil they don't use Creationism to figure out where the oil will be. They use modern science. There is a reason for that, and it isn't ideological, it is practical. They want to find the oil. If Creationism helped them do that they would use creationism. It doesn't because it doesn't model at any level of accuracy, the formation of rock layers and the biological remains found in them.

All the same just because modern medicine works does not mean "thou shalt not kill " is to be dismissed.

Zombrex · 10-06-2011 11:13am

ISAW wrote: »

Empirical science maybe. But for example how do you test wormhole theory or parallel universe theory ( all part of modern science).

We can have models of parallel universes which are not testable.

Yes, and thus we do not consider them accurate, because science requires testable models. :rolleyes:

We have been over this before.

ISAW · 10-06-2011 12:06pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, and thus we do not consider them accurate, because science requires testable models. :rolleyes:

We have been over this before.

For "we" read "I" .

Science considers then valid.

different philosophies of scienmce include or exclude them.

I am only pointing out your "empiricism" is onlu one Epistemology.and ontologically based one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

Empiricism asserts that knowledge comes (only or primarily) via sensory experience as opposed to rationalism which asserts that knowledge comes (also) from pure thinking. Both empiricism and rationalism are individualist theories of knowledge, whereas historicism is a social epistemology. While historicism also acknowledges the role of experience, it differs from empiricism by assuming that sensory data cannot be understood without considering the historical and cultural circumstances in which observations are made.

Empiricism then, in the philosophy of science, emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.

I have to point out to you that Empiricism is objective. the only subjectve empiricism is Berkeley's approach to empiricism which would later come to be called subjective idealism. Berkeley was a Bishop and subjective idealism can not be subjected to falsification so by your own criterion it isn't science.

That leaves you with an objective philosophy. But as regards how the world is you stated you have a subjective outlook. How can you and also say you adhere to objective empiricism based on objectively agreed to standards of measurement?

Zombrex · 10-06-2011 1:18pm

ISAW wrote: »

For "we" read "I" .

Science considers then valid.

Valid in what way? Accurate representations of reality? No.

ISAW · 10-06-2011 10:39pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Valid in what way? Accurate representations of reality? No.

You cant say that unless you have an objective standard of measurement. Subjective idealism would suggest there is a perception on your head and the thing itsewlf only exists because of a subjective perception. without someone to perceive it existence of it is meaningless. to be is to be perceived.

See? What do you mean by "accurate"?

Zombrex · 11-06-2011 1:12am

ISAW wrote: »

You cant say that unless you have an objective standard of measurement.

Yes you can.

ISAW wrote: »

Subjective idealism would suggest there is a perception on your head and the thing itsewlf only exists because of a subjective perception. without someone to perceive it existence of it is meaningless. to be is to be perceived.

It is not meaningless. How objectively true something is is irrelevant. The entire universe could be just the imaginings of a brain in a jar, but science has practical purpose.

It doesn't matter if the science works based on true reality, or a complete illusion. What matters it that it works, it produces accuracy based on its own properties.

I or someone else already went through this with you. The aeroplane stays in the air because the science used to design it is accurate. If the aeroplane doesn't exist, and we don't exist, and everything is just a brain in a jar, this still holds. The science is accurate based on the properties of the system itself, be they true or merely an illusion.

himnextdoor · 11-06-2011 3:18am

Wicknight wrote: »

As Robin likes to say when oil men are going out to find oil they don't use Creationism to figure out where the oil will be. They use modern science. There is a reason for that, and it isn't ideological, it is practical. They want to find the oil. If Creationism helped them do that they would use creationism. It doesn't because it doesn't model at any level of accuracy, the formation of rock layers and the biological remains found in them.

Absolutely. If there was anything in Creationism, business and the military would be all over it.

Before 'Evolutionism', 'Creationists' were simply 'religious'. Creationism is religion's counterpoint to science and that is its only purpose; to discredit science by using non-evidential arguments based on the interpretation of a dusty old book.

Creationism does not try to appeal to science, which completely ignores it, but to the ignorant masses. Creationists want to label scientists as 'witches' and 'blasphemers'; they want to create animosity toward science and nurture the forlorn hope that mobs with burning torches will attack scientific institutions.

And how do they do it? They claim that science has us all brainwashed; science with all its measurements, test, proofs, evidence, etc., is conning us into not believing in Creationism. But what does science have to lose by validating Creationism? Nothing. If Creationism turned out to be true, then would quantum physics becomes false? What about relativity or Ohm's law? Would two plus two no longer equal four?

And wouldn't it be easy for science to support Creationism publicly in order to sell merchandise as the work of God? If computers worked on holy water then they could be sold at a higher price, no?

History has shown that evidence is not required for brainwashing, fear of the unknown will do. Why would science, the whole of academia with all its research money go to such trouble to brainwash us when people naturally accept the words of people wearing white coats or uniforms? They don't need to. You don't need to brainwash a population when you have tanks and guns at your disposal, you just need them to fear you.

The problem that Creationists have with science is that it explains nature so effectively that fear has been eroded. There are less unknowns to be afraid of.

And ultimately, fear is the only tool available to religion.

That is why Creationism, in the guise of religion, is opposed to science; people obey God out of fear alone.

PDN · 11-06-2011 7:39am

himnextdoor wrote: »

And ultimately, fear is the only tool available to religion.

That is why religion, in the guise of Creationism, is opposed to science; people obey God out of fear alone.

Moderating Instructions

If you want to argue against Creationism then fire away - that fits in fine with this thread.

If you want to make silly generalised slurs against religion in general (which contravene this forum's Charter) then please take it to A&A.

ISAW · 11-06-2011 9:50am

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes you can.

It is not meaningless. How objectively true something is is irrelevant. The entire universe could be just the imaginings of a brain in a jar, but science has practical purpose.

Along the lines of Berkeley

It doesn't matter if the science works based on true reality, or a complete illusion. What matters it that it works, it produces accuracy based on its own properties.

Along the lines of Instrumentalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism
A concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality.

But

http://www.jstor.org/pss/40320349
Peirce emphasized that a supposition of reality and truth seems to be the only way to explain scientific progress and to justify the scientific practice of seeking explanations of regularities in better theories. In particular, Peirce explained that unobservable objects had an important role in science, as long as their existence yields in principle empirical consequences that could be tested (in principle).

and:

The philosopher of science Karl Popper repeatedly rejects and criticizes instrumentalism in Conjectures and Refutations, perhaps regarding it as too mechanical...

Instrumentalism denies that theories are truth-evaluable; instead, they should be treated like a black box into which you feed observed data, and through which you produce observable predictions. This requires a distinction between theory and observation, and within each type a distinction between terms and statements

I or someone else already went through this with you. The aeroplane stays in the air because the science used to design it is accurate. If the aeroplane doesn't exist, and we don't exist, and everything is just a brain in a jar, this still holds. The science is accurate based on the properties of the system itself, be they true or merely an illusion.[/QUOTE]

In short one cant have the "imagined universe in a jar" instrumentalist and be a constructive emiricist at the same time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_empiricism

I think it harks back to the never ending struggle I seem to be having with you in that you state your philosophy is subjective and then tell others that you observations are verified by objective standards which are empirically measured. I am lost when you keep changing from one to the other.

Zombrex · 11-06-2011 5:51pm

ISAW wrote: »

I am lost when you keep changing from one to the other.

You shouldn't be, considering we are often discussing different subjects, such as morality and science. If I hold that all morality is subjective why would you suppose that such a position should hold for something completely different, such as empirical study?

You appreciate that if we were discussing soccer and I said something and later we were discussing World of Warcraft you wouldn't expect that what I said in relation to soccer should automatically hold when discussing World of Warcraft.

There really shouldn't be any confusion, I can't help feeling the confusion is simply of your own making.

himnextdoor · 11-06-2011 7:15pm

PDN wrote: »

Moderating Instructions

If you want to argue against Creationism then fire away - that fits in fine with this thread.

If you want to make silly generalised slurs against religion in general (which contravene this forum's Charter) then please take it to A&A.

I wouldn't presume to do such a thing either here or there.

Morbert · 11-06-2011 8:35pm

ISAW wrote: »

Empirical science maybe. But for example how do you test wormhole theory or parallel universe theory ( all part of modern science).

We can have models of parallel universes which are not testable.

The existence of wormholes and parallel universes is speculative, and is not an established scientific theory. At most, scientists say it might be possible that they exist, as they are allowed by general relativity, a well-tested theory.

In order for these models to be affirmed, they must be tested. In the case of wormholes, a test would be measurable radiation from stars. For parallel universes, a test would be the detection of specific gravitational waves.

Yes but not for all science. See also http://www.herinst.org/envcrisis/science/method/myth.html

Observation may be culturally influenced.

This may be an issue for some of the "softer" sciences, but it is not an issue for biologists or physicist.

What we need in the above case is a test which the poster agrees to which we can do and which would show the flood did not happen. If the poster expects the test to show negative and it shows positive then they have to accept it did not happen as they expected.

This is the problem with "flood geology". A large flood would not be expected to preserve an evolutionary hierarchy in the fossil record, and an ark would not be expected to produce an evolutionary hierarchy in the geographical distribution of life.

wolfsbane · 12-06-2011 9:36pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Creationist have not produced a series of models that accurately predict modern geography in a scientific manner. By that I mean in detail, not simply saying well the flood would have changed the landscape, look! we have a changed landscape.

No Creationists theory of this flood can explain in scientific detail how these rock layers managed to layer themselves in the way they did with the fossils distributed in the way they are.

On the other hand modern theories of physics do, they explain it in vast detail, making accurate predictions of how the rock layers formed, how they move and warp under head and pressure, how they slide into the mantle and back out again etc etc.

As Robin likes to say when oil men are going out to find oil they don't use Creationism to figure out where the oil will be. They use modern science. There is a reason for that, and it isn't ideological, it is practical. They want to find the oil. If Creationism helped them do that they would use creationism. It doesn't because it doesn't model at any level of accuracy, the formation of rock layers and the biological remains found in them.

A model:
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History
by Independent researchers Steven Austin, ICR, John Baumgardner, Los Alamos National Laboratory, D. Russell Humphreys, Sandia National Laboratories; Andrew Snelling, Answers in Genesis (USA); Larry Vardiman, ICR; Kurt Wise, Truett-McConnell CollegeOctober 27, 2010
http://http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v5/n1/catastrophic-plate-tectonics

Some detailed research:
Conflicting ‘ages’ of Tertiary basalt and contained fossilised wood, Crinum, Central Queensland, Australia
Andrew A. Snelling
http://http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/tj_v14n2_crinum.pdf

The sites and links can be followed to other research.
*****************************************************************************
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

wolfsbane · 12-06-2011 9:45pm

himnextdoor wrote: »

Absolutely. If there was anything in Creationism, business and the military would be all over it.

Before 'Evolutionism', 'Creationists' were simply 'religious'. Creationism is religion's counterpoint to science and that is its only purpose; to discredit science by using non-evidential arguments based on the interpretation of a dusty old book.

Creationism does not try to appeal to science, which completely ignores it, but to the ignorant masses. Creationists want to label scientists as 'witches' and 'blasphemers'; they want to create animosity toward science and nurture the forlorn hope that mobs with burning torches will attack scientific institutions.

And how do they do it? They claim that science has us all brainwashed; science with all its measurements, test, proofs, evidence, etc., is conning us into not believing in Creationism. But what does science have to lose by validating Creationism? Nothing. If Creationism turned out to be true, then would quantum physics becomes false? What about relativity or Ohm's law? Would two plus two no longer equal four?

And wouldn't it be easy for science to support Creationism publicly in order to sell merchandise as the work of God? If computers worked on holy water then they could be sold at a higher price, no?

History has shown that evidence is not required for brainwashing, fear of the unknown will do. Why would science, the whole of academia with all its research money go to such trouble to brainwash us when people naturally accept the words of people wearing white coats or uniforms? They don't need to. You don't need to brainwash a population when you have tanks and guns at your disposal, you just need them to fear you.

The problem that Creationists have with science is that it explains nature so effectively that fear has been eroded. There are less unknowns to be afraid of.

And ultimately, fear is the only tool available to religion.

That is why Creationism, in the guise of religion, is opposed to science; people obey God out of fear alone.

Since Creationism holds to all of actual science, as distinct from materialist interpretations of it, what extra insight could the military or industry hope to gain from creationist as opposed to main-stream scientists? What value would an understanding of catastrophic global flood geology bring to them - are they planning to cause another, or avert one?

As to the establishment's reasons for rejecting creationism, an innate hatred of God prevents them from being open to anything that would give Him credence.

**************************************************************************
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

himnextdoor · 12-06-2011 10:01pm

Did not dead bodies bloat and float at the time of the flood? And wood?

Surely a global flood would have ensured that there was almost no fossil record at all; floating objects would be the last to hit the ground as the waters receded. The heavier deposits would already be down.

And there would probably be no oil too; how could wood end up underneath heavy sediment which would have settled weeks before the waters had receded?

Also, why don't we find kangaroo fossils in Wales? Indigenous animals would have been distributed far and wide and away from their original habitats.

It seems to me that the existence of a fairly extensive fossil record is evidence that there was no great flood at all.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Comments