|
Author
|
Topic: Most convincing evidence for creation theory
|
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3069 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: 11-21-2003
|
|
Message 166 of 307 (412357)
07-24-2007 2:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 97 by Percy
07-23-2007 3:00 PM
|
|
Re: Best Positive Evidence
Percy writes: So which is the most convincing? SNIP.... For the general public and probably for scientists, too, the most convincing creationist evidence is #2, the appearance of design. Agreed without any buts attached. Design appearance logically corresponds to invisible Designer. Once the identification correspondence is made we then refer to the most respected and proven and factually infallible source for invisible Designer (the Bible). Of course when this happens, Genesis special creation comes with it, evolution is falsified. This is why evolutionists must fight tooth and nail to deny the appearance of design to be real or actual. Evolution is falsified right here: the same appearance logically does not correspond to an antonym (mindless natural selection). The amount of illogical special pleading that the evolutionist engages in on this specific point is equal to the degree that evolution is based on atheistic presuppositions known as Methodological Naturalism or Materialism. Whence sayest the evolutionist, "our theory says nothing about God"? Wherein everytime the evolutionist denies design to correspond to the work of invisible Designer.
Very few people of any persuasion would consider numerological claims about the Great Pyramid to be evidence in favor of creationism, or of anything at all, for that matter. The passage system layout and its features (readily available online) corresponds directly to all of the major claims of the Bible once somebody points it out; therefore it is not a matter of opinion, all anyone has to do is LOOK and listen to the explanation since the interior layout of the passages and their features is impossible to change. Ray
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 97 by Percy, posted 07-23-2007 3:00 PM | | Percy has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 175 by iceage, posted 07-24-2007 3:07 PM | | Cold Foreign Object has not replied | | | Message 243 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-26-2007 9:43 AM | | Cold Foreign Object has replied |
|
Cold Foreign Object
Suspended Member (Idle past 3069 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: 11-21-2003
|
|
|
Message 167 of 307 (412359)
07-24-2007 2:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 102 by RAZD
07-23-2007 4:14 PM
|
|
Re: By Jove, he's right!
So the "best" evidence is affirming the consequent and the argument from incredulity, combined with assuming the bible is true to prove that the bible is true. Sounds about right to me. Your comments make no sense whatsoever. Ray
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 102 by RAZD, posted 07-23-2007 4:14 PM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 180 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2007 4:30 PM | | Cold Foreign Object has replied |
|
Cold Foreign Object
Suspended Member (Idle past 3069 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: 11-21-2003
|
|
|
Message 168 of 307 (412362)
07-24-2007 2:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 105 by Buzsaw
07-23-2007 8:12 PM
|
|
Re: Best Positive Evidence
Ray you forgot my significant one which is bonafide and was submitted forthrightly. 7. The quantitive factor. Please feel free to add to the list. Said list is not final or exclusionary. I did not incorporate your evidences because I am not familiar with them through study. You can also contribute to the list by initialing items you agree with and asterisk items you disagree with.
If you have only one or two evidences, you have no argument for your hypothesis. The more evidences you have for ID creationism, that is evidences of factors required for life to exist which are supportive of ID, the more of a case you have for substantiating your hypothesis. My list of examples are just a few of the many which could be cited. I read your post outlining these evidences and they are true and very important facts supporting Creationism-ID. Please add them to the list. I have read many physicists talk of these evidences and the are so true. I might add: in Biblical numerology the number five always corresponds to God's grace. Five is the number of grace. We know the Bible is about God's grace extended to fallen man. We both know the extent of God's grace in our personal lives as does every converted believer. Fact: the Earth is the fifth largest planet in our solar system. Ray
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 105 by Buzsaw, posted 07-23-2007 8:12 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
Cold Foreign Object
Suspended Member (Idle past 3069 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: 11-21-2003
|
|
|
Message 169 of 307 (412365)
07-24-2007 2:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 94 by jar
07-23-2007 1:59 PM
|
|
Re: Best Positive Evidence
So it looks like your list is about as holy as the other fundy's list. Since Atheist-Darwinism (Jar's group) and AiG YECreationism both accept microevolution, this means both groups of Fundamentalists are conducting the same business on opposite sides of the street. Ray Martinez, Paleyan IDist, Old Earth/Young Biosphere Creationist.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 94 by jar, posted 07-23-2007 1:59 PM | | jar has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 170 by Brian, posted 07-24-2007 2:49 PM | | Cold Foreign Object has replied |
|
Brian
Member (Idle past 4980 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: 10-22-2002
|
Re: Best Positive Evidence
Ray Martinez, Paleyan IDist, Old Earth/Young Biosphere Creationist. That's some letters to have after your name Ray.  How have you been? Brian.
|
Cold Foreign Object
Suspended Member (Idle past 3069 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: 11-21-2003
|
Re: A SOBERING THOUGHT:
Einstien and Newton both rejected the randomness premise underlieing a complexity; both were Creator based Creationists to their core. Joey: you have made a blatant error. It is an uncontested historical fact: Einstein was an Atheist. Simply do a google search or read Jammer, Einstein the Atheist is not disputed. Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology - Max Jammer - Google Books Ray
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 144 by IamJoseph, posted 07-24-2007 8:59 AM | | IamJoseph has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 192 by IamJoseph, posted 07-25-2007 12:24 AM | | Cold Foreign Object has not replied |
|
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2498 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: 01-24-2007
|
|
|
Message 172 of 307 (412373)
07-24-2007 2:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 165 by Jaderis
07-24-2007 2:02 PM
|
|
Re: What's the connection? (back to the topic?)
Jaderis writes: I don't mean to seem like I'm picking on ya, mate, but the only reference to Roger Pre(i?)mrose author of Multiverse was you on another forum. IamJoseph probably means Roger Penrose, but isn't familiar enough with Penrose's work to remember his name. Roger Penrose - Wikipedia
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 165 by Jaderis, posted 07-24-2007 2:02 PM | | Jaderis has not replied |
|
Cold Foreign Object
Suspended Member (Idle past 3069 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: 11-21-2003
|
|
|
Message 173 of 307 (412374)
07-24-2007 2:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 170 by Brian
07-24-2007 2:49 PM
|
|
Re: Best Positive Evidence
That's some letters to have after your name Ray. How have you been? Just fine, thanks; and yourself? Last I knew you finally got bored with the Fundies and took a leave of absence? I also see that you are still saying there is no evidence in reality supporting the Octateuch. This means that you are still an Atheist, correct? Would you like to see some evidence of Abraham or Hebrews in Egypt? Let me know? Ray
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 170 by Brian, posted 07-24-2007 2:49 PM | | Brian has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 174 by Brian, posted 07-24-2007 3:06 PM | | Cold Foreign Object has replied |
|
Brian
Member (Idle past 4980 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: 10-22-2002
|
Re: Best Positive Evidence
Just fine, thanks; and yourself? I am very well thanks.
Last I knew you finally got bored with the Fundies and took a leave of absence? Fundies, biased mods, and over-moderation were the factors. But I am only back until Monday, then I am off to Spain for a week, come back for a few days then off on a dig for a week (unrelated to the Bible), then back for a few days before starting work again. So, I'll be going inactive again on Monday until probably xmas time.
also see that you are still saying there is no evidence in reality supporting the Octateuch. Well, not quite. I am saying that the evidence isn't as blatant as Joseph seems to think it is, and that a lot has been falsified by archaeology. But the poor guy has problems reading.
This means that you are still an Atheist, correct? Can't imagine being anything else, unless I see Jesus coming over the horizon as I take my last breath then I'll believe in my heart etc. I just hope He hasnt shaved the beard off or I may mistake Him for someone else! 
Would you like to see some evidence of Abraham or Hebrews in Egypt? Let me know? I don't really have much spare time, but if you want to chat my new addy is bj25 at le.ac.uk, my Glasgow Uni addy is still active at the moment but is due to be archived very soon. Take care of yourself and good luck with your project. Brian.
|
iceage
Suspended Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: 09-08-2003
|
Re: Best Positive Evidence
Ray writes: Once the identification correspondence is made we then refer to the most respected and proven and factually infallible source for invisible Designer (the Bible) Respected in your culture, maybe. Many Other cultures disagree. The bible is not proven and it certainly not factually infallible. There are many aspects that falsify the Bible with respect to the nature of the world - lets start at the beginning: the order of appearance of the classes of life is wrong.
Ray writes: Genesis special creation comes with it, evolution is falsified. You do *not* understand falsification.
Ray writes: Evolution is falsified right here: the same appearance logically does not correspond to an antonym (mindless natural selection). Like i said you do *not* understand falsification - you just do not fully comprehend how well evolution explains the appearance of design. The appearance of design does correspond to natural selection. Natural selection generates appearance of design by filtering better functioning "designs" over the less functioning "designs". Further there are *many* aspects in nature that exist that do not serve to as some optimal survival "appearance of design" feature. Examples include: long tail birds, brightly colored fish and over antlered ungulates. These attributes do not have the "appearance of design" for survival but are byproducts of a sexually selection process.
Ray writes: The amount of illogical special pleading that the evolutionist engages in... The creationist are those engaging in special pleading. Evolution is based on evidence not special pleading.
Ray writes: Whence sayest the evolutionist, "our theory says nothing about God"? Wherein everytime the evolutionist denies design to correspond to the work of invisible Designer. "Everytime"? You should not use infinitives. There are theist that have a range of beliefs in the activity of the designer in course of evolution - yours "this or that" position is really in the minority.
|
Cold Foreign Object
Suspended Member (Idle past 3069 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: 11-21-2003
|
|
|
Message 176 of 307 (412380)
07-24-2007 3:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 174 by Brian
07-24-2007 3:06 PM
|
|
Re: Best Positive Evidence
I don't really have much spare time, but if you want to chat my new addy is bj25 at le.ac.uk, my Glasgow Uni addy is still active at the moment but is due to be archived very soon. Take care of yourself and good luck with your project. Thanks, Brian, I will drop you a line sometime. If you want to email me with an address I will send you (free of charge) a copy of the Rutherford chronology. It will give you the Biblical claims. I will also email you with the link when my paper is up since it has much to do with the Bible. I think you find the Biblical arguments most interesting. Wish I had the exciting life you had in going to Spain and so forth. Good luck. Ray pyramidial@yahoo.com
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 174 by Brian, posted 07-24-2007 3:06 PM | | Brian has not replied |
|
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2514 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: 08-09-2005
|
Re: Best Positive Evidence
You've once again confirmed my suspicion that you don't have a firm grasp of the words you are using. Best that you either stop debating, or educate yourself on the terms you are using. Your core concept, aside from being completely unsupported by facts, is in and of itself contradictory. I wonder if you are even able to convince youself
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 120 by IamJoseph, posted 07-24-2007 1:57 AM | | IamJoseph has not replied |
|
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2498 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: 01-24-2007
|
|
|
Message 178 of 307 (412388)
07-24-2007 3:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 164 by RAZD
07-24-2007 11:28 AM
|
|
Re: What's the connection? (back to the topic?)
RAZD writes: You can provide no evidence for anything more than a Deist god that designed the universe to operate by his physical laws. ....I'm a Deist. A highly amused Deist. Ah, so you're a creationist of sorts. What's your most convincing evidence for creation, then? Is there evidence of the Deity that we can observe via the study of his creation? Enjoy 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 164 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2007 11:28 AM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 179 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2007 4:14 PM | | bluegenes has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: What's the connection? (back to the topic?)
What's your most convincing evidence for creation, then? It's faith, a feeling of one... it's in the sig Enjoy
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 178 by bluegenes, posted 07-24-2007 3:42 PM | | bluegenes has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 181 by Brian, posted 07-24-2007 4:30 PM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: By Jove, he's right!
Your comments make no sense whatsoever. Cognitive dissonance Ray? Affirming the Consequent:
quote:
Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
B
Therefore, A # If I am in Calgary, then I am in Alberta. I am in Alberta, thus, I am in Calgary. (Of course, even though the premises are true, I might be in Edmonton, Alberta.)
In your case: If a designer then a design DESIGN! Therefore a designer! Argument from Incredulity: Gosh, would you look at all that design! Even snowflakes are designed! Assuming the bible is true to prove that the bible is true I refer you to Message 166:
Once the identification correspondence is made we then refer to the most respected and proven and factually infallible source for invisible Designer (the Bible). And gosh this shows that the bible is a proven source ... etc This is called Begging the Questionquote:
We know that God exists, since the Bible says God exists. What the Bible says must be true, since God wrote it and God never lies.
It's not rocket science Ray, it's logic. Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
|
™ Version 4.2