Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Ten Laws of Creationism and Intelligent Design
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 20 of 75 (803787)
04-04-2017 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by GDR
09-12-2016 11:32 AM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
The biblical record is clear and concise, reasonable and rational when considering science and mathematics, history, and world events from the BEGINNING.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by GDR, posted 09-12-2016 11:32 AM GDR has not replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 21 of 75 (803788)
04-04-2017 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by GDR
09-12-2016 11:32 AM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
The biblical record is clear and concise, reasonable and rational when considering science and mathematics, history, and world events from the BEGINNING.
It just takes some time and study before you can see it. Evolution is easy to understand because it is all based on luck and chance, if given enough shakes of the dice, to eventually come up with an amazing combination that just happens to fit in perfectly.
Theres no mathematics to evolution, no science of real beneficial mutations, and no timeline that doesn;t get changed time after time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by GDR, posted 09-12-2016 11:32 AM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Coyote, posted 04-04-2017 10:08 PM Davidjay has replied
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-05-2017 12:58 AM Davidjay has replied
 Message 41 by dwise1, posted 04-05-2017 11:24 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 27 of 75 (803819)
04-05-2017 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Coyote
04-04-2017 10:08 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
All three of your examples are provable, as the Flood is true history. (And can be proven mathematically to be significant) Evolutionists claim that Dinosaurs were struck by comets is unprovable and almost on the verge of complete insanity and totally unscientific.
Science and math and design prove creationism. Luck and chance prove nothing except that this concept must be forced on students of real science so there basis is in false science.
Evolution does not abandon its premises of luck and chance even though it has never been proven and they have no evidence. They still go on with it because it is their religion.
I back science, and rational thinking rather than the lucky chances and so called beneficial mutations put forth by religious evolutionists. Science shows design, laws were not created by random chance, no laws are evolving.
Science backs creationism as creationism shows design. Evolution is without design or purpose or clarity, just miraculous miracles of chance and luck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Coyote, posted 04-04-2017 10:08 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Diomedes, posted 04-05-2017 9:48 AM Davidjay has not replied
 Message 32 by herebedragons, posted 04-05-2017 10:38 AM Davidjay has replied
 Message 34 by Coyote, posted 04-05-2017 10:56 AM Davidjay has replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 28 of 75 (803820)
04-05-2017 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Pressie
04-05-2017 8:11 AM


Actually I am very rational, Please comment on the subject rather than the writer. Be objective rather than subjective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Pressie, posted 04-05-2017 8:11 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 29 of 75 (803821)
04-05-2017 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Dr Adequate
04-05-2017 12:58 AM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
As a scientist, I have an obligation to put forth mathematics that you evolutionists do NOT have, and evidence that you evolutionists do not have.
Evolutionists almost never answer questions, hardly ever, they have no answers, so can only try to ridicule, or say they belong to science, even though they have no science.
If evolutionists had proofs they would have put them forward years ago. They have no missing links, they have no transition species, they have nothing. But it is their right to have their religion, I just wish they wouldnt force their religion on their captive students.
Allow them to think. Give them the decision rather than via evolutionary intimidation and force.
If you have specific areas of interest in science or history, a specific title and thread would be best for its discussion
Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-05-2017 12:58 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 9:02 AM Davidjay has not replied
 Message 33 by herebedragons, posted 04-05-2017 10:52 AM Davidjay has replied
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-05-2017 2:13 PM Davidjay has not replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 30 of 75 (803833)
04-05-2017 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Davidjay
04-05-2017 8:18 AM


Re: Mathematics of Evolution
Someone HERE stated that there is mathematics associated with 'evolutionary' theory. Never heard anyone ever state that before.
Evolution is purely a supposed chance situation where sufficient magical beneficial mutations take place to develop a supposed better species by luck and chance. Evolutionists get this faith of the almost insanely impossible by sheer chance and luck, that their impossibility could be possible if given enough time.
Statistically its impossible but they hang onto their faith and say just wait another million years, or trillion years, or *********.
Magical beneficial mutations have never been shown to develop complex organisms or simple ones as simple ones are extremely complex as well.
But go ahead and give your math and equations, your claim needs to be proven and substantiated...... otherwise people might question your theory even further..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 8:18 AM Davidjay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-05-2017 2:07 PM Davidjay has not replied
 Message 52 by caffeine, posted 04-05-2017 2:15 PM Davidjay has replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 35 of 75 (803852)
04-05-2017 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by herebedragons
04-05-2017 10:38 AM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
No problem brethren because we are all brethren with the same basic DNA design...... brothers by design.
Sure, just ask in proposed topics that you admit that evolution has no mathematical basis and you want to see creational mathematics proven.
As for evolution's denial of the worldwide flood, Yes definiterly I can absolutely prove mathematically that it was perfectly timed, in world history, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
History is by design, the future is by design its called prophecy. No problem. These things were not done in secret, all things are meant to be revealed, just do the math. Be scientific rather than mere theorists or religionists.
Just go to Proposed Topics and by your demand or request I shall come and answer your questions, if allowed to do so.
But do start off by admitting evolution again has no mathematical basis, statistical basis in its luck and chance, and then I can present my evidence with hyperlinks etc.... just request this information.
Be an honest searcher, and search. Seek and ye shall find, says the Lord of Creation, we are told to use our God given brains, rather than them just filling up the vacuum above.
Genesis as mentioned is very scientific, as a basis point... the details follow in other books, and in the created world of the microcosm and macrocosm, etc etc etc etc ...

Evolution is not science and is pure religion, forced upon the young to ensure their faith in luck and chance rather than mathematics and design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by herebedragons, posted 04-05-2017 10:38 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 04-05-2017 11:02 AM Davidjay has replied
 Message 39 by herebedragons, posted 04-05-2017 11:12 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 36 of 75 (803854)
04-05-2017 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by herebedragons
04-05-2017 10:52 AM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Herebedragons.... not a problem, I realize this is an evolution discussion board, and seldom if ever do evolutionists feel compelled to come up with any answers, but sure NOW that I am cleared to post on the science boards, I can answer your queries and you can get answers if you are honest or if you are scientific. Science is about laws and design, not about conjecture. Just post on the Proposed TOPICS board what you are interested in finding out, and why you haven;t come to any conclusions via evolution as yet. And then I can try to answer your query.
I do dislike one sided debates, when in the real world, debates are two sided, mutual questioning and answering. You know what I mean ?
Do see see my signature for further details
Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.

Evolution is not science and is pure religion, forced upon the young to ensure their faith in luck and chance rather than mathematics and design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by herebedragons, posted 04-05-2017 10:52 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 38 of 75 (803859)
04-05-2017 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by jar
04-05-2017 11:02 AM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
"""Jar...when you write..I'm sorry but that is simply a really stupid assertion. Neither of the two mutually exclusive creation myths are scientific or accurate and both are fully refuted by actual evidence and the thing called reality. To claim Genesis is scientific or accurate is as absurd as claiming either of the two mutually exclusive Biblical flood myths actually happened.""""
I would suggest, you answering a matter before you hear it and search it out, is a rather stupid assertion. Now lets get back to this topic ...
As design is not anywhere in evolutionary theory, its premise is that all things evolved in time (billions and trillions of years) and just happened by chance to fit together and work together in harmony by luck and chance. So rather than design being a myth, I would suggest to you that evolution is a total myth, with absolutely no evidence. I mean if there was evidence, why didn't they teach us any of it in university and why did they never allow anyone to question them.
But if you like that as a TOPIC, please go to Proposed Topics and ask that we discuss this educational censorship and lobotomy of new minds.
Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.

Evolution is not science and is pure religion, forced upon the young to ensure their faith in luck and chance rather than mathematics and design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 04-05-2017 11:02 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 04-05-2017 11:15 AM Davidjay has not replied
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 04-05-2017 11:25 AM Davidjay has replied
 Message 45 by dwise1, posted 04-05-2017 11:57 AM Davidjay has not replied
 Message 53 by dwise1, posted 04-05-2017 2:49 PM Davidjay has not replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 43 of 75 (803869)
04-05-2017 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Coyote
04-05-2017 10:56 AM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Coyote, Nice pic of the receeding flood and how it gouged out the landscape, Actually the Grand Canyon, is a better example of the receeding flood, or up HERE you can literally see the mountain, with a sand plane, below into the valleys. Very conclusive.
Yes, the waters below, receeded downward and it took something like a year to receed....
Thanks for the pictorial confirmation

Evolution is not science and is pure religion, forced upon the young to ensure their faith in luck and chance rather than mathematics and design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Coyote, posted 04-05-2017 10:56 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Coyote, posted 04-05-2017 1:09 PM Davidjay has replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 44 of 75 (803871)
04-05-2017 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Percy
04-05-2017 11:25 AM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Never seen any fossil evidence personally, I have seen a lot of artists depictions and imaginations, and frauds and counterfeits for the sake of further research funding.
But no there still are no missing links, but Yes, the worldwide flood did cause a lot of fossils to be scattered around.
Birds becoming mammals becoming fishes, with spouts on the tops of their heads, as with mamalian whales... Nah I'm not buying it.
But you can buy it if you like, as that is your freedom of choice. Not a problem.
Genesis is literal.... starting a new proposed thread on Creation Day 1, with the creation of Light and LIGHT SPEED, wait for it if acceptable.
Evolutionists can post how light was created, or always was, and ETERNAL if they choose to do so. Or they can just say, they have no idea. Either way... choice is theirs and ours.

Evolution is not science and is pure religion, forced upon the young to ensure their faith in luck and chance rather than mathematics and design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 04-05-2017 11:25 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by dwise1, posted 04-05-2017 12:03 PM Davidjay has replied
 Message 50 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-05-2017 2:08 PM Davidjay has not replied
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 04-06-2017 8:26 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 55 of 75 (803921)
04-05-2017 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by dwise1
04-05-2017 12:03 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Dwise, please reframe from calling me a blithering idiot. Scientists try to be objective rather subjective. Name calling does not win you converts in the debate, or any debate. If anything it shows you have lost the debate..... and your opponent has won.
Creationism has laws, and principles. Evolution is based on luck and chance, and its statistical so called law is that eventually a lucky combination will produce itself by accident if given enough time. It can be condensed into the religious saying of, all things are possible with evolution, just give it or her enough time. If not a billion years, wait a trillion years.
Design always wins over lack of design, always.
Intelligence always wins over lack of intelligence.

Evolution is not science and is pure religion, forced upon the young to ensure their faith in luck and chance rather than mathematics and design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by dwise1, posted 04-05-2017 12:03 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-06-2017 10:48 AM Davidjay has not replied
 Message 67 by dwise1, posted 04-06-2017 11:14 PM Davidjay has replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 56 of 75 (803922)
04-05-2017 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by caffeine
04-05-2017 2:15 PM


Re: Mathematics of Evolution
Caffeine, do read between your lines, as a theory of a theory gets wilder and wilder..... and the reason your so called mathematician type tried to come up with something is that evolutionary doctrine is as vaque and inaccurate and inexact as inexactness gets. Its is not RIGOROUS or in any way mathematical.
I love exactness, not inexactness and inexact probabilities given definitive parameters that never stay the same. Evolutionary theory is filled with too many maybes, could have, might have, possibily this or maybe possibly that, could have been a million years, maybe billion years, maybe trillion years.
I love math and science and laws, not inexactness from the desperate

Evolution is not science and is pure religion, forced upon the young to ensure their faith in luck and chance rather than mathematics and design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by caffeine, posted 04-05-2017 2:15 PM caffeine has not replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 57 of 75 (803924)
04-05-2017 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Coyote
04-05-2017 1:09 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Coyote, if you want the true history of the Flood, just start a new thread, on it and I shall answer. You can post your billions and trillions of years, and I can post my immensely smaller exact numbers.
Not a problem, just go to Proposed New Topics....
Herein we must stay on TOPIC, and further confirm the Ten Laws, somebody gave..... they sound pretty good to me, even though I never heard of them before.
So we have confirmation. If you deny one, do so logically and rationally. Thanks

Evolution is not science and is pure religion, forced upon the young to ensure their faith in luck and chance rather than mathematics and design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Coyote, posted 04-05-2017 1:09 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 5:54 PM Davidjay has not replied
 Message 65 by caffeine, posted 04-06-2017 1:17 PM Davidjay has not replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 58 of 75 (803925)
04-05-2017 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Davidjay
04-05-2017 5:49 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Dr Adequate
As I love consistency and endurance and truthfulness, Yes I am a Christian Missionary, and have remained one since my graduation from University with a BSC...... even though the not so nice evolutionary professors tried to fail me for not believing their dogma. We can talk about that forced indocrination, ona NEW THREAD.
And Yes, of course as a true scientist, I had to test and try out and experiemnt whether the principles and laws of the Lord are applicable. Its not mere talk and bluster as with evolutionary imaginations in a dream world, but real life, follwoing the precepts.
It was proven, and confirmed. The Lords laws of love and life work and are proveable and repeatable, and viable.
If you want to be truthful or find out, just try them out yourself personally.
Got to fly..
Thanks for the response, but lets get back to confirming the Ten Laws of Creationism, that someone found.

Evolution is not science and is pure religion, forced upon the young to ensure their faith in luck and chance rather than mathematics and design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 5:49 PM Davidjay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Porosity, posted 04-05-2017 7:51 PM Davidjay has not replied
 Message 61 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2017 8:33 AM Davidjay has not replied
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-06-2017 10:53 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024