The Truth of Genesis

[reformed1689]

You can? Have you presented your proof to any scientists?

Look at ICR. They have teams of scientists that prove this stuff every day.

 

[Justadude]

Look at ICR. They have teams of scientists that prove this stuff every day.

ICR is a Christian apologetics organization, not a science org. I guess I should take your reply to mean that no, you have never presented your proof to any scientist. Should I also conclude that you're not ever going to either?

 

[reformed1689]

ICR is a Christian apologetics organization, not a science org. I guess I should take your reply to mean that no, you have never presented your proof to any scientist. Should I also conclude that you're not ever going to either?

So you won't even look at the evidence. Your bias is showing. From ICR's website:

ICR conducts laboratory, field, theoretical, and library research on projects that seek to understand the science of origins and Earth history. ICR scientists have conducted multi-year research projects at key locations such as Grand Canyon, Mount St. Helens, Yosemite Valley, and Santa Cruz River Valley in Argentina, and on vital issues like Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE), Flood-Activated Sedimentation and Tectonics (FAST), the human genome, soft tissue in fossils, and other topics related to geology, genetics, astro/geophysics, paleoclimatology, paleobiochemistry, and much more.

And yes ,they do, in fact, have a team of scientists. ICR Science Team

They have peer-reviewed articles. You have no interest in the Bible and what it says, why are you even here?

 

[Justadude]

So you won't even look at the evidence. Your bias is showing.

I'll say it again. I do not rely on Christian apologetic sources for information about science.

From ICR's website:

ICR conducts laboratory, field, theoretical, and library research on projects that seek to understand the science of origins and Earth history. ICR scientists have conducted multi-year research projects at key locations such as Grand Canyon, Mount St. Helens, Yosemite Valley, and Santa Cruz River Valley in Argentina, and on vital issues like Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE), Flood-Activated Sedimentation and Tectonics (FAST), the human genome, soft tissue in fossils, and other topics related to geology, genetics, astro/geophysics, paleoclimatology, paleobiochemistry, and much more.

And yes ,they do, in fact, have a team of scientists. ICR Science Team

They also say all this: Foundational Principles

Their position is, anything that disagrees with the Bible is automatically wrong, period. That's religious apologetics, not science.

They have peer-reviewed articles.

In their own creationist journals, not scientific journals.

You have no interest in the Bible and what it says, why are you even here?

Why does CB allow non-Christians to be here, and even has specific sub-forums for non-Christians to post in?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You missed the point. You argued that evolution is atheistic because it contradicts part of the Bible. But if you apply that same reasoning to medical science, you would have to conclude that it too is atheistic.

Since you appear to agree that medical science isn't atheistic, then the logic behind your argument about evolution being atheistic must be wrong.


And they think you are the one misinterpreting.


Wrong. There are tens of thousands of Christian denominations who all have their own interpretations of the Bible (and even different Bibles). There are not tens of thousands of interpretations of 2 + 2.


You can? Have you presented your proof to any scientists?

I never argued anything was atheistic. That is your argument not mine

if your going to make baseless accusations. Then you are unwilling to discuss and have ulterior motives and I am through

 

[reformed1689]

I'll say it again. I do not rely on Christian apologetic sources for information about science.

They are SCIENTISTS.

That's religious apologetics, not science.

And you say anything religious is not allowed. That's also not objective science. You defeat your own case by saying a Christian Scientist can't have a valid position. That's dishonest.

In their own creationist journals, not scientific journals.

First, have you looked up every article published by these scientists? I doubt it.

Why does CB allow non-Christians to be here, and even has specific sub-forums for non-Christians to post in?

I asked why you were here.

 

[Justadude]

I never argued anything was atheistic. That is your argument not mine

When I was discussing @reformed1689 's argument that evolution is atheistic because it "tries to take God out of the question", you jumped in and replied to my question about how evolution tries to take God out by saying that evolution contradicts Genesis.

If your intent wasn't to support and contribute to the argument about evolution being atheistic, what was your point?

if your going to make baseless accusations. Then you are unwilling to discuss and have ulterior motives and I am through

Instead of getting upset you should just explain what you meant.

 

[Justadude]

They are SCIENTISTS.

Not if they've agreed to work according to ICR's tenets.

And you say anything religious is not allowed. That's also not objective science.

Science is not "if something disagrees with the Bible it's automatically wrong". Do you think it is?

You defeat your own case by saying a Christian Scientist can't have a valid position. That's dishonest.

I never said that. I know lots of Christian scientists who do very good work.

First, have you looked up every article published by these scientists? I doubt it.

I told you, I don't rely on Christian apologetics organizations for information about science. Why would I?

I asked why you were here.

Because I want to.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

When I was discussing @reformed1689 's argument that evolution is atheistic because it "tries to take God out of the question", you jumped in and replied to my question about how evolution tries to take God out by saying that evolution contradicts Genesis.

If your intent wasn't to support and contribute to the argument about evolution being atheistic, what was your point?


Instead of getting upset you should just explain what you meant.

I made a statement of how a certain belief goes against gods word

you yourself believes Christians state they believe in evolution and I agreed

that would make them non atheist

please stop trying to excuse your actions

 

[Justadude]

I made a statement of how a certain belief goes against gods word

you yourself believes Christians state they believe in evolution and I agreed

that would make them non atheist

please stop trying to excuse your actions

I guess if we agree that evolution isn't atheistic, that's a good thing.

 

[reformed1689]

Not if they've agreed to work according to ICR's tenets.

How about secular science that agree to work on those presuppositions? Again, you are biased and not showing any objectivity at all though you try to project that you are.

Science is not "if something disagrees with the Bible it's automatically wrong". Do you think it is?

True science never contradicts Scripture.

I never said that. I know lots of Christian scientists who do very good work.

Yet you write off ICR immediately because it doesn't fit your viewpoint. Isn't that exactly what you accuse me and others of doing?

I told you, I don't rely on Christian apologetics organizations for information about science. Why would I?

You are dodging the issue. You said you listen to scientists, but that's not true. You listen to your preferred scientists.

Because I want to.

Why?

 

[reformed1689]

I guess if we agree that evolution isn't atheistic, that's a good thing.

Evolution is not based on observation. It's based on theories that are EASILY debunked. It's not science.

 

[Justadude]

How about secular science that agree to work on those presuppositions? Again, you are biased and not showing any objectivity at all though you try to project that you are.

Which scientific organization works according to tenets similar to ICR's?

True science never contradicts Scripture.

So medical science isn't true science?

Yet you write off ICR immediately because it doesn't fit your viewpoint. Isn't that exactly what you accuse me and others of doing?

Wrong. I'll say it again, I don't rely on Christian apologetics organizations for information about science, just like I don't rely on Muslim apologetics organizations for information about IT.

You are dodging the issue. You said you listen to scientists, but that's not true. You listen to your preferred scientists.

Wrong. The people at ICR are not scientists because they work according to an unscientific rule, "anything that disagrees with the Bible is wrong".

Why?

Because I find it interesting and I like to write.

Evolution is not based on observation. It's based on theories that are EASILY debunked. It's not science.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked @Enow . Are you expecting me to believe that's true just because you say it is? I see scientists from all over the world holding the opposite view, so why do you think I would reject that just because of what you posted above? Who do you think you are?

 

[reformed1689]

So medical science isn't true science?

What medical science contradicts Scripture?

Wrong. I'll say it again, I don't rely on Christian apologetics organizations for information about science, just like I don't rely on Muslim apologetics organizations for information about IT.

Again, you are dodging. Both Christian and Secular scientists come at a project with pre-suppositions. Yes? Are you at least honest enough to agree with that? Yet you only look at findings from the group that agrees with your viewpoints. You deem one group of scientists valid and the other invalid because one is Christian and one is "real" science.

Wrong. The people at ICR are not scientists because they work according to an unscientific rule, "anything that disagrees with the Bible is wrong".

This is actually dishonest. They ARE scientists because they follow scientific principles. You have to remember, the scientists that you uphold say anything that has a God Creator is wrong. You have a double standard problem.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked @Enow . Are you expecting me to believe that's true just because you say it is? I see scientists from all over the world holding the opposite view, so why do you think I would reject that just because of what you posted above? Who do you think you are?

We are talking about a historical event. One nobody today was witness to. One that cannot be repeated. Yet, I have an eyewitness account. That trumps any theory a scientist comes up with.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Are you a biologist, expert in eyes, geneticist, or other specialist in the field of eye evolution?

Flatworm eyes work just fine even though they don't have all the parts a human eye has. So your argument is wrong.

You creationists really need some new arguments.

Oh. I must be just the same as you qualifications-wise, unless you have a PhD in one of those sciences. Knowing my luck, you probably have!

 

[Justadude]

What medical science contradicts Scripture?

I'm pretty sure if I asked any doctor if a person could be dead for three days and then come back to life, they'd say no.

Again, you are dodging. Both Christian and Secular scientists come at a project with pre-suppositions. Yes? Are you at least honest enough to agree with that?

You're not getting away with that. ICR's tenets dictate that anyone who works for them has to abide by the rule "anything that disagrees with the Bible is wrong". That's not at all similar, or even in the same ballpark, as any principle any scientific organization works under.

You can't just say "they both have presuppositions", as if all presuppositions are equal. That's like saying a jaywalker and serial killer are equal because they're both criminals.

Yet you only look at findings from the group that agrees with your viewpoints.

Wrong. I don't rely on them for scientific information because they're not a scientific resource, not because they don't agree with me.

You deem one group of scientists valid and the other invalid because one is Christian and one is "real" science.

Wrong. I'll say it again. I know lots of Christian scientists who do good work. ICR is unscientific not because they're Christians, but because they operate under an unscientific set of rules. You would do well to appreciate the difference.

This is actually dishonest. They ARE scientists because they follow scientific principles.

Huh? You actually think "if it disagrees with the Bible it's wrong" is a scientific principle?

You have to remember, the scientists that you uphold say anything that has a God Creator is wrong. You have a double standard problem.

Show me any scientific organization that has that rule.

We are talking about a historical event. One nobody today was witness to. One that cannot be repeated. Yet, I have an eyewitness account. That trumps any theory a scientist comes up with.

That doesn't address the issue. You seem to be expecting me to accept things as true for no other reason than that you say they're true. For example, when you said "Evolution is not based on observation. It's based on theories that are EASILY debunked. It's not science", what was your expectation? That I would change my mind for no other reason than that you said so?

 

[Justadude]

Oh. I must be just the same as you qualifications-wise, unless you have a PhD in one of those sciences. Knowing my luck, you probably have!

So you're not a qualified expert in eyes, genetics, or evolution. Then I'll ask you the same question I've been asking others. Were you expecting me to just take what you said about eyes and evolution as truth, over what actual experts in those fields say?

 

[Paul Christensen]

So you're not a qualified expert in eyes, genetics, or evolution. Then I'll ask you the same question I've been asking others. Were you expecting me to just take what you said about eyes and evolution as truth, over what actual experts in those fields say?

Yep. Because I believe the literal text of the Bible, that God is quite capable of creating an aged universe in a moment of time, and He doesn't have to defend, or prove His methodology to human scientists.

Actually, I am a qualified in linguistics, as part of my diploma in Teaching English as a Second Language, and can analyise the word "expert". "ex" means a has-been, and "spert" rhymes with "spurt" which means a drip under pressure! Putting all that together, an "expert" may be described as a "has-been drip under pressure!"

 

[Justadude]

Yep. Because I believe the literal text of the Bible, that God is quite capable of creating an aged universe in a moment of time, and He doesn't have to defend, or prove His methodology to human scientists.

So you expect me to accept whatever you say about eyes and evolution as truth because you believe in the Bible.

Wow. I don't know what to say.

Actually, I am a qualified in linguistics, as part of my diploma in Teaching English as a Second Language, and can analyise the word "expert". "ex" means a has-been, and "spert" rhymes with "spurt" which means a drip under pressure! Putting all that together, an "expert" may be described as a "has-been drip under pressure!"

 

[Paul Christensen]

So you expect me to accept whatever you say about eyes and evolution as truth because you believe in the Bible.

Wow. I don't know what to say.

Well, the Bible is the only record where "possible", "probable", and "might have" are not used to describe the creation of the universe. So, for a Christian believer who accepts that God is really there, and did inspire the Biblical record, he must also accept that God was the only eye-witness to the event of creation, and if He says that He created the universe and this world in seven days, and is quite definite about it, and does not require His record of events to be subject to man's judgment, then as a Bible-believing Christian, I just accept God's version of events as they are written, according to the Scripture, "Let God be true and every man [by comparison] a liar", and "As the heavens are above the earth, God's ways are above our ways, and His thoughts above our thoughts."

But then, if a person doesn't believe that God is really there, and did not communicate anything to mankind in any sort of record such as the Bible, then I can understand that evolution is probably the only possible explanation of how our universe and world came into being.