The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

J C · 09-04-2017 01:44PM

wrote:

Originally Posted by oscarBravo
I'm also curious: has Creation Science ever demonstrated anything in the Bible to be untrue?

drdidlittle
Bump this question as I dont see it any answer. Very curious about the views of ID or Bible scholars

Nothing that I'm aware of.

J C · 09-04-2017 02:33PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sorry JC, you've confused me again. You have appeared to suggest that ID proponents do not profess to have proof that God created life, but that the current evidence points to it being a probability. And given a lack of evidence from any other source you believe this this position to offer the best theory?

Is that your position?

My position is somewhat stronger than that ... the evidence is compelling and it is a mathematical certainty that an intelligence of a very high degree created life.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Lets just have a quick recap of you recent postings

You posted about the Arenberg 16, stating it as proof of an attempt of science to break away from evolution. This turns out to be false.

It was an attempt to break away from Darwinian Evolution, by trying to come up with a plausible natural alternative.

Leroy42 wrote: »

You have stated that there is a ban on counter evolution scientific work, despite telling us that creationist are constantly working on it and despite not being able to offer any proof. Not one whistle-blower, that isn't directly connected to a religious movement has ever come forward. You also that, a point I refer to below, that some scientists have actually proved God existence.

Here are some Chinese researchers who have fallen foul of the Anti-ID 'thought police' by simply using the word Creator when they meant Nature ... and they were neither whistle-blowers nor directly connected to a religious movement (not that this should automatically waive their rights to be heard and published anyway).

http://www.nature.com/news/paper-that-says-human-hand-was-designed-by-creator-sparks-concern-1.19499
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientific-study-paper-creator-intelligent-design-plos-one-creatorgate-a6910171.html

Quote:-
"Naturally, the multiple references to intelligent design in a reputable journal like PLOS ONE have stoked anger in the scientific community, and many people, including researchers who work as editors for the publication, are now calling for it to be retracted."

Why should this stoke anger and calls for retraction? ... surely it is all part of academic freedom ... and if ID proponents are incorrect, then the response should not be one of emotion (anger) or of censorship (retraction) ... but of logical cold reasoning ... by pointing out where they are erring in evidence, logic or interpretation.

... but there is obviously no academic freedom, and only emotional rather than logical responses, when it comes to Intelligent Design ... even when the references are an apparent mis-translation.

Quote:-
"The paper's authors appeared to acknowledge their mistakes in the comments section, saying the references to the 'Creator' were down to translation errors rather than a belief in intelligent design."

Leroy42 wrote: »

You mention some vague notion of career suicide.

There is nothing 'vague' about it ... it is career suicide to even mention the words Intelligent Design.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why would anyone stay in a career to which they fundamentally disagree? Surely you cannot count these people of religious of believers in God when they are so willing to live a lie just to enjoy the benefits on money and prestige. Jesus died on the cross, the disciples suffered to spread the word, and countless millions have suffered persecution due to their faith. But some scientists can't speak up for fear they will lose their jobs in an industry that is actively working against the truth of God. Yet you are placing your faith in these people?

Career scientists perform the research they are paid to perform and report on it honestly ... and this is a valid and noble occupation for Christians to pursue.
However, Christians shouldn't be hounded out of science if they express a belief that God created life or want to use the scientific method to do research into this possibility ... doubly so when the funding for research is provided by the tax dollars of millions of Christians ... and a tiny minority of anti-theists.

Leroy42 wrote: »

You stated that evolution had been debunked - this turns out to be, at best, made up.

Spontaneous evolution from pondkind to mankind is both evidentially and logically defunct ... and there has never been a plausible mechanism to explain how it could ever occur.

Leroy42 wrote: »

You stated when equally eminent scientists have established scientifically that an intelligence of God-like proportions did it. This was false.

It is very hard to have a considered discussion with anybody who can, being generous, change their position with such regularity.

My position has been constant and consistent ... where have I changed my position, in your opinion?

Leroy42 wrote: »

So, if I could ask for clarity again, as above. Do you believe that God created man. I think I am safe to say you do.

You are.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Do you have any proof, scientifically, to make this belief anything more than faith?

Yes I do.

Leroy42 wrote: »

If it is based on scientific evidence, as opposed to lack of evidence of something else, can you provide links to it and where it has been accepted?

Its been accepted by the Discovery Institute which an organistion that employs conventionally qualified scientists to research the evidence for Intelligent Design.
http://www.discovery.org/a/9761

Leroy42 wrote: »

If is based on faith, then can I assume that that faith is based on the bible? And if so do you therefore have faith in everything that the bible says?

It isn't based on faith ... its based on physical evidence, logical reasoning and scientific research.

Delirium · 09-04-2017 03:01PM

J C wrote: »

ID is a valid branch of scientific enquiry ... that is falling foul of the anti-theist bias present in science.

This bias has lead to a reverse form of 'McCarthyism' with claims that 'Creationists' are everywhere ... even when the people involved are theistic evolutionists.

... and the claim is that ID is trying to sneak religion into science itself (and not just into science class) ... again proof of the absolute bias against religion and religious people within science ... which is increasingly becoming a bastion of atheism.

So you're okay with teaching bible passages as science before first establishing an evidence for it?

It's not anti-religion to stop religion being taught as science. It's anti-bad science.

looksee · 09-04-2017 06:02PM

Spontaneous evolution from pondkind to mankind is both evidentially and logically defunct ... and there has never been a plausible mechanism to explain how it could ever occur.

When and where was this ever proposed, and by whom? The notion of a pond full of organisms from which suddenly people emerge (fully dressed?) seems to be what you are suggesting and frankly sounds more like something a creationist would dream up.

J C · 09-04-2017 06:50PM

Delirium wrote: »

So you're okay with teaching bible passages as science before first establishing an evidence for it?

I'm not OK with teaching bible passages as science ... but I am OK with establishing scientific evidence to verify Biblical Passages that are apparent historical accounts.

Delirium wrote: »

It's not anti-religion to stop religion being taught as science. It's anti-bad science.

I agree ... but it becomes both anti-science and anti-religion when scientifically validated evidence is banned from publication and its authors shunned, simply because it provides evidence for the existence of God.

J C · 09-04-2017 06:53PM

looksee wrote: »

When and where was this ever proposed, and by whom? The notion of a pond full of organisms from which suddenly people emerge (fully dressed?) seems to be what you are suggesting and frankly sounds more like something a creationist would dream up.

I am using the concept of 'pondkind to mankind evolution' to describe the process by which life supposedly evolved over millions of years.

... and it was a process that Darwin et al dreamed up.

Leroy42 · 09-04-2017 07:10PM

J C wrote: »

I am using the concept of 'pondkind to mankind evolution' to describe the process by which life supposedly evolved over millions of years.

... and it was a process that Darwin et al dreamed up.

You don't think life has evolved at all? I mean even man has evolved. How do you think all the different races came from?

You said in an earlier post that animals had evolved.

J C · 09-04-2017 07:31PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

You don't think life has evolved at all? I mean even man has evolved. How do you think all the different races came from?

You said in an earlier post that animals had evolved.

There is 'evolution' in the sense of artificial, natural and sexual selection within the original created genetic diversity of life ... and this has led to different breeds/races of animals and plants, as well as different ethnic groups of Humans. This includes selection of genetic and phenotypic types that are better adapted to different and/or changing environments.
... but there isn't any evidence for 'evolution' in the sense of novel functional genetic diversity being created and selected on a scale that would allow pondkind to 'evolve' into mankind ... even over millions of years.

Leroy42 · 09-04-2017 07:44PM

Right, so you accept the notion that change can occur, its just that you have yet to see evidence that change to the extent of one species to another can occur.

So what is the cut off point? Do you think a dog was created and all dogs came from that?

If Adam and Eve were the first two, then how did we end up with Chinese people, black people, white people etc.

And what about the fossils we have showing reptiles with feathers etc. How do you explain that?

How do you explain an Epaulette shark. It can walk using its fins. Do you honestly think the evolution stopped there?

And do you think evolution has finished or will it continue? At what point do you think it will stop?

It seems you are denying even the possibility. Even if you continue to believe that no evidence exists, how can you fully discount it yet accept the existence of a supernatural being

J C · 09-04-2017 08:12PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Right, so you accept the notion that change can occur, its just that you have yet to see evidence that change to the extent or one species to another can occur.

I accept that change occurs and even rapid speciation occurs. However, it is the source of the genetic diversity that facilitates the change, that we are disagreeing on ... it appears to me to have been created intellligently (possibly on a once-off basis) ... and evolutionists contend that the diversity comes from mutagenesis ... which is observed to be a destructive ... and not a creative process.

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what is the cut off point? Do you think a dog was created and all dogs came from that?

Yes all domesticated dogs (and wild dogs) would appear to have come from an originally created Dog Kind or Baramin

Leroy42 wrote: »

If Adam and Eve were the first two, then how did we end up with Chinese people, black people, white people etc.

By selection/isolation of the original genetic diversity present in the genomes of Adam and Eve.

Leroy42 wrote: »

And what about the fossils we have showing reptiles with feathers etc. How do you explain that?

If you are talking about Archaeopteryx ... this is an extinct true bird (and not some supposed intermediary/missing link) ... and its nearest living relative is the Hoatzin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoatzin

Leroy42 wrote: »

How do you explain an Epaulette shark. It can walk using its fins. Do you honestly think the evolution stopped there?

It obviously has stopped there.:)

Leroy42 wrote: »

And do you think evolution has finished or will it continue? At what point do you think it will stop?

Natural/sexual/artificial selection can continue as long as genetic diversity for particular traits persist ... in the case of artificial selection this can reach intensities whereby all genetic diversity is eliminated e.g. with pedigree animals ... and 'evolution' will cease for such creatures, unless they are outcrossed to non-pedigree or different pedigree breeds.
This is indicating that there comes a point when 'evolution' can cease for particular traits ... and if it is a trait critical to survival, in a particular environment, very often the inability to adapt, as a result, means that a species may die out.

Leroy42 wrote: »

It seems you are denying even the possibility. Even if you continue to believe that no evidence exists, how can you fully discount it yet accept the existence of a supernatural being

If somebody shows me evidence I will accept it ... but I think it is as unlikely as a dead thing coming back to life i.e. evolution from pondkind to mankind would require a miracle.

oscarBravo · 09-04-2017 09:44PM

J C wrote: »

If somebody shows me evidence I will accept it ...

No, you won't. You'll point to some of your nonsense pseudoscience and claim that it contradicts its.

J C · 09-04-2017 09:51PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, you won't. You'll point to some of your nonsense pseudoscience and claim that it contradicts its.

now, now ... we'll let the reader decide which is the pseudoscience ... and which is not.

Timberrrrrrrr · 09-04-2017 11:44PM

J C wrote: »

now, now ... we'll let the reader decide which is the pseudoscience ... and which is not.

I think you will find that 99% of readers (that post itt) will Agree that what you post/link to is considered "pseudoscience "

Delirium · 10-04-2017 08:28AM

J C wrote: »

I'm not OK with teaching bible passages as science ... but I am OK with establishing scientific evidence to verify Biblical Passages that are apparent historical accounts.

All good so far....

I agree ... but it becomes both anti-science and anti-religion when scientifically validated evidence is banned from publication and its authors shunned, simply because it provides evidence for the existence of God.

and we're back to the conspiracy theory.

You said earlier that the scientists with evidence for the existence of God/ID are unwilling to publish/get their work validated for fear of losing their jobs.

Now you're saying that evidence exists but it is rejected by the scientific community because it proves God exists.

Which is it?

J C · 12-04-2017 08:45PM

Delirium wrote: »

All good so far....

and we're back to the conspiracy theory.

You said earlier that the scientists with evidence for the existence of God/ID are unwilling to publish/get their work validated for fear of losing their jobs.

Now you're saying that evidence exists but it is rejected by the scientific community because it proves God exists.

Which is it?

It's a bit of both ... ID scientists are unwilling to even try to have papers published because they will not be published once the editors find out they are ID papers ... and if by some miracle, a paper slips through and gets published, the paper will be retracted once it is found to be an ID paper.
... and the author will have their career prospects damaged for even attempting to have the paper published.

This is no conspiracy theory ... it's out there in the public domain.

Science cannot make progress when scientists are in fear of publishing their results.

J C · 12-04-2017 08:56PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I think you will find that 99% of readers (that post itt) will Agree that what you post/link to is considered "pseudoscience "

... Just as well then, that real science isn't a popularity contest !!!
... and 99% of the population probably thought that Galileo was wrong, at the time, too!!!:)

Professor Moriarty · 12-04-2017 09:14PM

J C wrote: »

... Just as well then, that real science isn't a popularity contest !!!
... and 99% of the population probably thought that Galileo was wrong, at the time, too!!!:)

Ironically, Galileo's greatest opposition came from the Catholic church who subjected him to inquisition and imprisonment until he recanted his theory of heliocentrism.

J C · 12-04-2017 09:27PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Ironically, Galileo's greatest opposition came from the Catholic church who subjected him to inquisition and imprisonment until he recanted his theory of heliocentrism.

... and equally ironically, the Roman Catholic Church, at the time, was basing it's opposition to Galileo and heliocentrism on the conventional scientific opinion of the time ... which was based on the geocentric model of Aristotle and Ptolemy.

We have been here before!!!:)

Professor Moriarty · 12-04-2017 09:47PM

J C wrote: »

... and ironically, the Roman Catholic Church, at the time, was basing it's oposition to Galileo and heliocentrism on the conventional scientific opinion of the time ... which was based on the geocentric model of Aristotle and Ptolemy.

We have been here before!!!:)

Actually, no. Their concern was that his theory contradicted the bible. In the verdict of the inquisition, he was "vehemently suspect of heresy".

Specifically, heliocentrism was contrary to two lines in the Bible: (Psalm 104:5) "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." and (Ecclesiastes 1:5) "And the sun rises and sets and hastening returns to its place."

J C · 13-04-2017 12:34AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Actually, no. Their concern was that his theory contradicted the bible. In the verdict of the inquisition, he was "vehemently suspect of heresy".

Specifically, heliocentrism was contrary to two lines in the Bible: (Psalm 104:5) "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." and (Ecclesiastes 1:5) "And the sun rises and sets and hastening returns to its place."

The RCC has never adhered to Biblical literalism and has always used extra-biblical sources ... so the 'heresy' of Galileo was effectively his calling into question the geocentric model of Aristotle and Ptolemy to which the RCC had given its public assent.:)

Delirium · 13-04-2017 08:27AM

J C wrote: »

It's a bit of both ... ID scientists are unwilling to even try to have papers published because they will not be published once the editors find out they are ID papers ... and if by some miracle, a paper slips through and gets published, the paper will be retracted once it is found to be an ID paper.
... and the author will have their career prospects damaged for even attempting to have the paper published.

This is no conspiracy theory ... it's out there in the public domain.

Science cannot make progress when scientists are in fear of publishing their results.

But ID isn't working to investigate the origins of life, it's working to prove a literal interpretation of the bible. I.e. God created the universe and humanity.

And yes it is a conspiracy theory as you frequently state that scientists have provent the existence of God but won't publish due to fears of losing their jobs. Or that the scientific community is actively suppressing the evidence becase they don't want the people to know (even though scientists are Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc

).

The only evidence that seemingly exists, is secret data you somehow have access to but are unwilling to share with anyone else to examine. Science can't work on this basis. "I have the evidence! you just have to trust me as I can't show you it!"

J C · 14-04-2017 12:20AM

Delirium wrote: »

But ID isn't working to investigate the origins of life, it's working to prove a literal interpretation of the bible. I.e. God created the universe and humanity.

They are investigating the origins of life ... and if they have any bias it's certainly no worse than the current bias within Scientific Evolutionism that excludes the scientific evaluation of the evidence for God Creating life.
... and of course, ID proponents are not suppressing the study and publication of evidence for spontaneous evolution ... while their study and publication of evidence for ID is being suppressed.

Delirium wrote: »

And yes it is a conspiracy theory as you frequently state that scientists have provent the existence of God but won't publish due to fears of losing their jobs. Or that the scientific community is actively suppressing the evidence becase they don't want the people to know (even though scientists are Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc ).

... its all out there in the public domain and I'll let everyone make their own minds up on it.

Delirium · 14-04-2017 08:47AM

J C wrote: »

They are investigating the origins of life ... and if they have any bias it's certainly no worse than the current bias within Scientific Evolutionism that excludes the scientific evaluation of the evidence for God Creating life.

You're getting muddled, JC.

1. How can ID/creationists be considered to be scientifically investigating the origins of life when their goal is to prove that God did it? They're working backwards from a conclusion. Science follow available evidence to get to a conclusion, not the other way around!

2. Evolution is how life deveolped, not how it was created. You're thinking of abiongenesis. Or are you suggesting that God was involved during all developments/mutations of life on Earth?

... and of course, ID proponents are not suppressing the study and publication of evidence for spontaneous evolution ... while their study and publication of evidence for ID is being suppressed.

... its all out there in the public domain and I'll let everyone make their own minds up on it.

Not evidence. That's a documentary about creationists and their claims not being accepted without evidence by the scientific community.

You've repeatedly claimed evidence exists for the existence of God but it's being suppressed. Where is the evidence publically available for people to review?

antiskeptic · 14-04-2017 10:08PM

Delirium wrote: »

You're getting muddled, JC.

1. How can ID/creationists be considered to be scientifically investigating the origins of life when their goal is to prove that God did it? They're working backwards from a conclusion. Science follow available evidence to get to a conclusion, not the other way around!

Not that I'm one for defending creationism but...

Can't Goddidit be a hypothesis and science be used to test the hypothesis. You wouldn't need to get to a proof of God but could, conceivably, get to reasonable conclusion. Theories aren't ever proven but are merely the best of the available explanations for the observations that can't be explained otherwise.

Leroy42 · 15-04-2017 10:01AM

The problem is that regardless of the theory put forward by anyone trying to assert that belief in God is anything other than blind faith, inevitably runs into the causation issue. For their argument to work, the very thing that they argue against, (there must be a cause, how did nothing come from nothing, how can organic life come from a rock) they must accept that very notion into their argument, special pleading.

Everything needs a cause, except for God because he always existed etc.

And then even if you are willing to concede, for the sake of argument, that their position is in any way justified, it goes no way into dealing with a personal god, never mind the actual god they happen to believe in and even less a god that has any interaction or ability to interact with us.

We have spent pages debating evolution, yet that brings JC and the likes no closer to their god. Instead of being able to show proof of god, they can do little more than poke holes in others theories. We have gone from God sending down his son to directly change the course of the world to now having little to say only posit negatives with everyone else.

We have people putting forward the possibility of a vast conspiracy to deny proof of god, whist simultaneously having the situation of religious orders having vast amounts of money and special tax breaks to spread their message. And god seems completely powerless to break this embargo. And even a cursory look at the media will show you that significantly more space is given over to religion than it is for science.

The very fact that even Christianity cannot agree with itself as to that Christianity is isn't exactly a ringing endorsement either.

ABC101 · 17-04-2017 12:44AM

Delirium wrote: »

You're getting muddled, JC.

1. How can ID/creationists be considered to be scientifically investigating the origins of life when their goal is to prove that God did it? They're working backwards from a conclusion. Science follow available evidence to get to a conclusion, not the other way around!

2. Evolution is how life deveolped, not how it was created. You're thinking of abiongenesis. Or are you suggesting that God was involved during all developments/mutations of life on Earth?

Not evidence. That's a documentary about creationists and their claims not being accepted without evidence by the scientific community.

You've repeatedly claimed evidence exists for the existence of God but it's being suppressed. Where is the evidence publically available for people to review?

I do not understand how you can arrive at such conclusions.

After having watched the video link posted by JC above, I watched the entire documentary. If you have not done so, I would suggest you do.

The documentary clearly gave evidence of scientists having lost their jobs / ostracised/ funding cut because they dared to suggest that ID could be a factor in creation of life. Whether that ID be passing aliens who seeded planet Earth or a Deity.

Even R.Dawkins at the end of the complete documentary suggests that perhaps passing aliens created life on Earth. Which means R.Dawkins is open to ID, even if he is unwilling to entertain the idea of a Deity.

But it raises another question, who / what / how did the aliens come into existence? Chicken and egg etc.

It was clearly stated in the documentary, that those scientists who think ID is a possibility just want a level playing field.

If you are not prepared to entertain any and all possibilities..... then you are not really a scientist.

As mathematics / physics / Quantum mechanics and technology advances, the human understanding of life / universe increases.

No longer do we think of the most basic object is the Atom / Cell. We now know there are many parts to a Atom, gluons, bosons, quarks etc, and for the Cell we have amino acids, proteins, which are made up of DNA and so it goes on and on.

Therefore, what was previously understood to be a given, is now being challenged by advances in the science itself.

Is that not what science is fundamentally about, you start at a certain start point, you test your theory, and through successive iterations of refinement you get closer to the truth. As you get closer to the truth, you discover you are further away from your starting point.

Not true in all cases, but perhaps generally true for most.

antiskeptic · 17-04-2017 09:43PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

The problem is that regardless of the theory put forward by anyone trying to assert that belief in God is anything other than blind faith, inevitably runs into the causation issue. For their argument to work, the very thing that they argue against, (there must be a cause, how did nothing come from nothing, how can organic life come from a rock) they must accept that very notion into their argument, special pleading.

Everything needs a cause, except for God because he always existed etc.

Is not the argument that naturalistic processes require a naturalistic precursor? A supernaturalistic process wouldn't be so bound.

And then even if you are willing to concede, for the sake of argument, that their position is in any way justified, it goes no way into dealing with a personal god, never mind the actual god they happen to believe in and even less a god that has any interaction or ability to interact with us.

This doesn't address the point I made in my last post. Concluding non-natural processes the best explanation would be a step. The nature of the non natural processes that did it would be a subsequent problem

The very fact that even Christianity cannot agree with itself as to that Christianity is isn't exactly a ringing endorsement either.

Your not for one moment supposing science one homogenous blob of agreement?

Absolam · 18-04-2017 03:13AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is not the argument that naturalistic processes require a naturalistic precursor? A supernaturalistic process wouldn't be so bound.

It would beg the question how can one prove that there such a thing as a supernaturalistic process at all, though. Right now we could define a supernaturalistic process as 'that which can be imagined but not proven'. Fantasy may be a great spur to scientific endeavour, but I don't think it's a solid basis for it.

Delirium · 18-04-2017 08:31AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not that I'm one for defending creationism but...

Can't Goddidit be a hypothesis and science be used to test the hypothesis. You wouldn't need to get to a proof of God but could, conceivably, get to reasonable conclusion. Theories aren't ever proven but are merely the best of the available explanations for the observations that can't be explained otherwise.

Sure. But what JC has been espousing is that evolution has been debunked (it hasn't) and that there is publically available evidence for God creating life as per the Young Earth creationists claims (still waiting for the links from JC).

Delirium · 18-04-2017 08:41AM

ABC101 wrote: »

I do not understand how you can arrive at such conclusions.

After having watched the video link posted by JC above, I watched the entire documentary. If you have not done so, I would suggest you do.

The documentary clearly gave evidence of scientists having lost their jobs / ostracised/ funding cut because they dared to suggest that ID could be a factor in creation of life. Whether that ID be passing aliens who seeded planet Earth or a Deity.

Even R.Dawkins at the end of the complete documentary suggests that perhaps passing aliens created life on Earth. Which means R.Dawkins is open to ID, even if he is unwilling to entertain the idea of a Deity.

But it raises another question, who / what / how did the aliens come into existence? Chicken and egg etc.

It was clearly stated in the documentary, that those scientists who think ID is a possibility just want a level playing field.

If you are not prepared to entertain any and all possibilities..... then you are not really a scientist.

As mathematics / physics / Quantum mechanics and technology advances, the human understanding of life / universe increases.

No longer do we think of the most basic object is the Atom / Cell. We now know there are many parts to a Atom, gluons, bosons, quarks etc, and for the Cell we have amino acids, proteins, which are made up of DNA and so it goes on and on.

Therefore, what was previously understood to be a given, is now being challenged by advances in the science itself.

Is that not what science is fundamentally about, you start at a certain start point, you test your theory, and through successive iterations of refinement you get closer to the truth. As you get closer to the truth, you discover you are further away from your starting point.

Not true in all cases, but perhaps generally true for most.

I asked JC for this evidence for the existence of God which proves the claims of creationists and disproves evolution.

I'm not aware of ever stating that creationists can suffer for the views in scientific realm.

As to the 'level playing field' how is level if scientists have provided a wealth of work to support evolution yet creationists/IDs haven't provided the equivalent.

Also it depends on which branch of creationism/ID that we're discussing regarding it being treated unfairly. I don't see how anyone can say scientists 'that aren't willing to entertain any possibility... aren't scientists' while also suggesting that accepting Young Earth creationism as a valid scientific POV are?

Then you have creationism mixed with evolution. This is somewhat more reasonable POV for me. We don't know what kickstarted organic life but science does seem to have an answer as to how it develop once it got going.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments