I'm not going to read anything you write ever again Lula, every time I read your ignorant repugnant responses I get farther and farther away from religion and any relationship with God. And that's not what I want.

OCKHAMSRAZOR POSTS:

Really? What does Evolution Theory contend then?

I'm not going to read anything you write ever again Lula, every time I read your ignorant repugnant responses I get farther and farther away from religion and any relationship with God, and that's not what I want.

Why not?  Creation Science is about HOW God did it.  God didn't explain this to us.  We have a biblical framework to start with wihich is much better than what the Evolutionists have and we go from there.  So why would there be no point?  He wants us to use our minds.  Science is quest for truth and to ignore God is NOT-Scientific!!!!

You've telling me  with this statement  that you've already made up your mind.....you can never learn then Stubby.   That's telling in itself.    No matter what I say, you will poo-poo it and say it's nonesense.  Heck you can't even tell me you've seen this movie.  That's telling in itself.

You and Ock have demonstrated very clearly that you do not understand Creationism by your statements here and because of this you cannot make a rational  intelligent decision.  You need to be quite familiar with both sides.  So far what you two have said about creationism isn't true.  Have you been to the Creation Museum?  Probably not.  All you know is what the Evolutionist are telling you.  Have you read any.....any reputable Scientists who are Christian?

ok Ock, I'll quit the drama!  This is balony.  Pure and simple showing me quite clearly you do not have even a working knowledge on Creationism nor ID.  

There are atheists and Buddhist who believe in the ID theory.  I wouldn't be surprised if most were not Creator God bible believing believers.   They do not believe in the creator God and stop short in saying so.  Albert Einstein had he been alive today would most certainly be in the ID camp.  He believed in an intelligent being as a designer behind everything we see today.  He even believed there was a god, but he was not a Christian. 

If you watched the movie you'd see and hear them say they had no Christian agenda and were not Christians.  IF YOU HAD SEEN THE MOVIE! 

Even Dawkins said the ID people are making scientific claims.  He believes they're wrong (of course)  but they are making them. 

Most what we are discussing has all to do with worldview and very little evidence.  Interpretations and worldview Ock.  It has nothing to do with evidence.  There is evidence on both sides.  Nothing is really solid in science.  It's all in the interpretation.  I think I'm right and you think you're right in your opinion.  Evidence battles will get us nowhere. 

And just so you know I know exactly what you're doing and you do it quite well I might add. Here are the steps that I notice you follow

1.  Attack what you believe is Christian Science

2.  When I come back and answer you and it's no longer good to go there you go after the belief system

3.  The next step is to attack me personally so now I'm waiting for the idiot and retard talk. And/or the fact that you're only trying to help me. 

This is the progression you go Ock.  Every time.  Do you recognize this?

You may not believe me but my heart is for you to know the truth.  The real truth.  I believe quite strongly you are listening to lies and half truths.  I would love for you to at least get to know the "other side" Ock.  So you can make a better and more logical decision. 

And as a Christian who believes very strongly in the spirit world I know that we humans are being influenced by more than we can see.  When I looked at Dawkins personally all I could see were the eyes of Satan....I'm not kidding.   We need to be able to discern things...where are they coming from?  Who's behind all this and why? 

 It's comforting to know that what we believe in Creation Science never changes but with the Evolution belief system it's like your foundation is built on sinking sand, always shifting and moving about. 

*Sigh* I guess it fits right into the post modern worldview. which is a whole nuther can of worms that I'm hoping to get too one of these days. 

 

I've read the biblical version of creation, what more can we learn that isn't written there? What can science tell us about how God breathed the stars and planets into existence? Give me one testable theory that pertains to how God did that.

You selectively respond to my questions as well, but no I haven't seen the movie and that's irrelevant. I can't look into the eye's of people and know if they're telling the truth and neither can you. You said;

And your wright it was easy to check, and they were not being honest. That's the problem there, creationist will accept unconditionally anything that supports scripture. You would never consider verifying there stories and even when faced with contrary information you simply say "your not telling me nobody was fired over this".

 

Perhaps at first glance it would seem this way, however, it's not when you think about it especially from a historical sense.

Prior to the middle of the 1800s, there were many scientists were researchers who firmly believed that all nature was created by God. Those pioneers who laid the foundation for modern science were who today we call Creation scientists. They were hard working researchers doing actual field research and spending countless hours in the laboratory.

The basis of Darwin's Evolution Theory (Darwinism) was destroyed by 7 scientific research findings before Darwin first published the theory.

William Paley, 1743-1805, made the first argument by design. Carl Linn 1707-1778 saw there were no halfway species...and worked defining plant and animal species according to definite categories. Heinrich von Helmholtz stated the first law of conservation of energy in 1847. R.J.E. Clausius stated the law of entropy. Gregor Mendel 1822-1884 experiments clearly showed that one species cannot transmute into a completely different one. His work laid the basis for modern genetics and his discoveries effectivily the basis for species macroevolution. Louis Pasteur 1822-1895 was another genuine scientist who proved that life cannot come from non-living materials disproving the theory August Friedrich Leopold Weismann 1834-1914 disproved Lamarck's notion of the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

In contrast, armchair philosophers like Emmanuel Swedenborg, Compte de Buffon, Lamarck, Robert Chambers, Chrales Lyell, and Alfred Russell Wallace, never entered a laboratory but sat around "theorizing" what would become the foundation of Darwinian Evolution theory.

In no particular order:

 

 

The basic issue is "what is science?"  If it doesn't follow the scientific method, it isn't science.  The scientific method requires experimentation where the experiments can be repeated by anyone and the same results obtained.

 

 

Maybe we're just using the word "evidence" differently.  For me, "evidence" is the result of scientific experimentation.  "Evidence" either bolsters a claim or proves it false.  It never proves it true.  For me "evidence" is necessary to have any belief in anything.  Take the phrase "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's probably a duck."  Now suppose you had an entity before you and you needed to determine what it was.  But you can't tell what it walks like, you can't tell what it sounds like, you can't tell what it smells, looks, tastes,  or feels like.  Are you still going to just go out on a limb and say it's a duck anyway?

 

In science, I look at this entity and I say "Hypothesis.  This thing is a duck."  I then experiment.  I take a photo of it.  I conclude it looks like a duck.  I publish that it looks like a duck."

 

You can now come along with YOUR camera and photo this thing.  It either still looks like a duck or it doesn't.  Now millions of other people look at our two photos, and they agree or disagree that this thing looks like a duck.  My original claim is either bolstered or proven false.  THAT is science.

 

 

I don't recall making any factual statements about creationism other than it can't be tested with repeatable experiments.  Would it be correct to say Creationism is a subset of ID?

 

 

Probably.  When it comes to good science (good = science that utilizes the scientific method) I don't care what people believe in.  So I wouldn't know if a scientist is an atheist, a Christian, or believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster unless they proclaim it.  It's completely irrelevant.  I don't have the same "know your enemy" viewpoint that you do.

 

I say ID isn't science.  All you have to do to prove me wrong is produce ID's very first hypothesis and accompanying experiments and results.  It should be a pretty famous experiment since it's the first one - historically speaking.  So...tell me.  What is that first experiment?

 

 

But you haven't answered the above.  I've asked it several times.  Should I point out that that is part of your standard progression?

 

 

The other side?  What other side is that?  Are there only two sides - mine and yours?  How about the side that says God started the machine running with certain parameters that would make everything in the universe possible and then the machine just ran according to his plan?  I actually find that much more believable over a God that controls the spin of every single electron.  Anyway, that's an ID theory that encompasses evolution.  The Big Bang DID happen.  God set it off.  Is that not a third side?  The only problem with pursuing is that it can't be tested.

 

So, we have a huge gap to fill.  We can either continue to test the nature of the gaps or suspend all testing and fill it with something that requires we just say it is so and believe it.  Up until the point that no more observational data and testing can be done, I will always stay on the side of "more testing."  If some point ever gets reached where there just aren't any more tests to do, then I'll decide at that point what I want to fill the remaining gaps with, but not until.

 

 

You already have that answer, don't you?

 

 

Quite so.  "God does not play dice" is the famous quote.  He said this in regard to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.  Ultimately it was a statement on faith of Einstein that just because it's impossible to determine causality at the planck scale (that part is proven) doesn't mean that causal determination is false.  I agree.  To say causal determination is false based on the fact that observing something changes its state and therefore we can never determine what state something is in when we're not looking at it (which is necessary for calculating determinacy) would be the same "gap science" that is so common in religion today.  Einstein chose to fill the gap with a creator, but I doubt he would have pushed that creator as a fact without some science to back it up.  It was just his personal choice.

 

You've been told by more people than just me that abiogenisis is in no way encapsulated by evolution, but you either can't or won't absorb that fact and separate the two.  Evolution is all about what happened right after that life came to be - how it proceeded to develop.  This guy states "evolution's contention that life is not a product of ID is an abiogenetic statement.  Therefore, it's a blunder on his part.

Stubby:

well I don't think so.  You're saying the creationists are lying in this movie because you're reading some reviews that are saying they are and you haven't watched it yet.  When you watch the movie you'd see it different....I believe.  For one thing you can see the evolutionists squirm when asked blatant questions putting them on the spot. And you can see the paperwork ie emails and letters highlighted to show what they just interviewed as saying isn't meshing with the paperwork.   At least one came right out and said we should wipe Christianity right off the map.  I agree that he, at least was one honest Evolutionist. 

I'm sorry if I missed any Stubby but what have I missed?  As far as I know I've covered everything you've brought up for the most part. 

well that, like I said, gives us the overview but not the specifics.  There is much more to science than origins.  We can go around and around about origins but the fact is neither side was observable nor repeatable.  That's where the bias come in.  My bias is a biblical worldview.

I've noticed tho something interesting especially alot lately.  Whenever there is something specific to report or investigate they can't go back more than say 6-10 thousand years which meshes quite nicely with the biblical worldview. 

 For instance, recently in the paper I was reading an article about greyhounds (dogs) and their history.  In the article they reported that they can only go back about 8,000 years.  When Ock put forth his article on blue eyes, the same was reported.  It's only when the Scientists are vague and want to be mysterious they'll say billions and billions of years ago.  There is NO proof out there of anything billions and billions of years ago.  It's all interpretation of the evidence. 

So are you saying evolutionists don't accept unconditionally anything that supporst evolution? 

Well that's not me per se but I would agree that many would take it and leave it as said but this can be true, maybe even so more true for those buying up what the humanistic Scientists are saying.  But for instance when they came up with the box of bones they thought was James (brother of Jesus)......I was skeptical wanting to wait for further testing to see if it was indeed true or not.  Turns out it was a fake.  I didn't jump on any bandwagon right away preferring to wait it out. 

 

 

 

I would say no. But I would think the Evolutionists, might lump them together but I wouldn't.  ID is not the same as Creation Science.  They are a group all unto them selves so I guess we could say we have Secular Humanism, Intelligent Design and Creationists.   In fact the Creation Scientists have been staying out of the public debate.  Have you noticed?  It's all about ID not Creationism. They prefer the grass roots approach. 

And I already answered this when I said it's a quest for the truth.  I have no issues here Ock with what you said but when it comes to origins neither can the evolutionist experiment this one out.  That's the issue. 

It's all about interpretation of evidence and worldviews!! 

yes and for both those who believe in Evolution and those who believe in Creation they would be agreed.  They don't have issues with the evidence that is obvious and can be proven. Both sides can agree on certain things. 

but I did answer you when I said this in Post 66: 

Just ask more questions?  What is this 21 questions? Why should I keep answering you when you totally ignore what I say?   Com'on.

You know as well as I do that you can get on the Discovery's Institutes web and look this up yourself. Why ask me?  I'm not a proponent of ID.  I'm a Creationist. 

absolutely.  You know it. 

 

 

I certainly don't.  And the only people I know that unconditionally accept anything are religious people.

 

 

Evolutionary biologists aren't attempting to explain origins.

 

 

That's hardly a direct answer to my request that you produce experimental data.  See, I'm going on an assumption here - I admit it.  This is your article on Expelled.  In it you make a couple of points - some direct and some indirect.  I'll recap what I see.

 

 

What I'm getting from the article that you wrote is that you think ID should be taught in a science class and that ID theories should be present in scientific journals.  Then when I ask you to back that up by producing one experiment ID has ever done, you cop out and say you're not a supporter of ID.  Producing examples of experiments is the only way to justify having ID in a science class, though. 

 

For not being a supporter of ID, it's odd that this entire article supports it - but I guess it isn't really ID you're supporting - it's the stranglehold that you perceive evolution has in the science class.  If evolution does have a stranglehold, it's because it's the only theory on the development of life that's been doing any experiments that can actually be studied in a science class.  If people are getting fired for teaching ID in a science class, it's because they aren't doing their jobs - which is to teach science - which ID is not.

 

This "fear" you perceive isn't a fear of the subject.  It's a fear of having science in general undermined by allowing things that don't follow the scientific method equal billing in a class which teaches things that are science.  That was the whole purpose of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  To demonstrate that if you allow ID into the science class, you have to let absolutely anything in - even something as absurd as a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

lula - can you please provide me with archelogical evidence that proves the Earth is as young as Creationists believe? Just out of interest, i'm having trouble finding some.

 

 

To make Creationism a science, you'd have to start with some experiments.

Have there ever been successful lab experiments demonstrating how a god creates life (let alone two different lifeforms)?

You need:

1. A lab without any life in it.

2. A big or mid-sized all-powerful god. (You can use a Greek or Roman god or a Semitic god, I don't care; please refrain from using Hindu or native American gods if possible to make the experiment easier to reproduce. Darwinists use fruit flies because they are easily obtained and well-understood. But I don't know much about Hindu gods.)

3. A way to observe the process of creation. You can use a camera and I will happily believe that you will refrain from using camera tricks. (A man dressed like Zeus comes in and blinks and in the next scene there are to fruit flies flying around his head. If that happens I will assume it was not a camera trick if you tell me it wasn't.)

I can probably help you with the lab (i.e. point you to a local university), but obtaining the god can be somewhat difficult. For me, that is, since I don't believe that Creationism is science. For someone who knows that Creationism is science, obtaining the necessary gods for casual experiments is probably as easy a task as obtaining fruit flies is for those scientists who see a difference between Creationism and science.


As for the age of the earth, the Bible says that G-d created the world and a man and a woman. It does NOT say that the earth created was not already millions of years old but indeed does acknowledge that the man and woman created were made as adults.

well I'm not Lula but I can point you in the right direction that can help you in your search.....

The books listed below will show that scientific dada does, indeed, support  creation, the flood and other events of history as specifically laid out in scripture....

The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris and John C. Whitcomb, Phillipsburg, NJ; 1961 518 pages

Most authorities view this book as the catalyst that initiated the creationist revival of recent decades.  It still contains the most extensive discussion of "flood geology" in print, as well as an introduction to many other key concepts of modern creationism.

Scientific Creationism, 2nd ed. El Cajon, CA; Master Books, 1985, 281 pages.

Probably the most comprehensive discussion in print of all aspects of midern "creation science."  Widely used as a textbook in both Christian and secular schools, it also contains an extensive bibliography of creationist and anti-Darwinian books, as well as thorough indexes of names and subjects.

What is Creation Science?  Henry Morris with Gary E. Parker.  2nd ed. El Cajon, CA: Master Books 1987, 356 pages.

Also a comprehensive coverage of the various aspects of sceintific creationism, but with great weight on the biological aspects. 

Science, Scripture and the Young Earth, Henry Morris with John D. Morris.  El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1989.  95 pages. 

This book is an answer to the main scientific objections (as well as a brief refutation of compromising biblical interpretations) to the biblical doctrine of recent creation and the worldwide flood. 

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science by Henry Morris; Grand Rapids: Baker 1986 516 pages

The most thorough coverage in print of the harmony of science and the Bible, with a chapter on each of the major sciences and scientific themes in relation to all the relevant Scriptures.  A special chapter is included refuting in detail the various theories attempting a compromise with evolution. 

Science and the Bible, by Henry Morris, Chicago: Moody, 1986 154 pages.

This book is an exposition of the scientific and prophetic insights of the Bible.  Previous editions of this book have been continuously in print for over 45 years.  Many have turned to God as a result of reading this book. 

No one is arguing this.  Repeatedly I've said and the creationists say that the creation account can't be repeated or observed.  Furthermore neither can molecules to man theory be proven as well.  Both are theories.  But they still teach humanistic evolution to our children regarding origins in the classroom as fact when in fact,,,,,,,,,, it's not fact. 

Everything was made with age including light. 

 

of course .......and I would expect this answer from you.  It's a very biased POV.   So you say you're more objective than I?  I replied to that same question with:

Now I admit my biased worldview but as far as who is more objective I would not be able to say you are Ock.  You are even more biased than I am.  Only you're just unwilling to admit it thus far anyway. 

true for the most part,  but it does depend on the subject matter.  If the subject of origin comes up either by lecture or simple conversation  I'm sure they are not going to point to the bible as their source now are they? 

But you take the same biologist who just so happens to have a biblical worldview and if the subject of origins comes up, he's going to point to the scripture as the beginning of biology.  It always comes back to worldview.  Always. 

When I went to Disney it was loaded with evolutionary thought processes all thru their exhibits.  Even when they got to history they used evolutionary lingo bypassing any mention of the bible even when they were speaking in one exhibit about the establisment of the Printing Press.  Not a mention to what book was the first book printed.  This is all done on purpose. 

well what else is there besides the nonesense?  There is only a debate going on about a creater/designer or not.  Is there an intelligent being behind all that we see or not?  Explore both equally scienficially and let the people decide.  Otherwise this is only all about indoctrination. 

We had a letter to the editor from a biology teacher this past week.  He said:

"I am appalled to witness the dishonesty of academia in regard to the teaching of origins.  The teaching of the adult fairy tale called evolution, to the exclusion of other ideas is brainwashing and not education.  I thought science was a search for truth.

I always assumed that a good education would present various points of view, allow students to think critically, and draw their own conclusions.  Why do evolutionists feel threatened by different ideas on origins? "

Keep in mind Scotteh said he felt threatened by the ID folks.  I know another HS biology teacher personally who would echo these same sentiments.  He's teaching evolution because he's being forced to but he sees the lies and misinformation behind the science.   So when he teaches this he says......"some scientists believe."   When asked directly by a student on certain topics he'll admit he's not one of those scientists.