Most convincing evidence for creation theory

Not all deists believe in creation though.Brian.

He's very famous and a long standing atheist. Recently he gave numerous interviews, and stated his position concerning complexities and randomness. He can be googled under MultiVerse (last book) or Roger Penfold/biologist.

quote:

---

Now exactly what support do you have for the Bible being given more weight than any other creation myth?

---

Genesis is the only scientifically based premise for creationism, introducing science itself, evolution and origins knowledge of both the universe and life. When this subject is debated, it is between science and genesis only; this is where its at.There is more vindication in genesis than darwin concerning life's origins and how it came about - at least we have a definition here, namely the first life forms were dual-gendered and then separated to become male/female offspring. This is not myth but a legit different view which is not unscientific at all!The differencials and groupings of life forms are cast from a creational perspective, and thus modern humans are listed as one 'kind' (speech endowed biengs, as opposed 'species' denoted by generic skeletal and biological imprints), and others as land/air/water based 'kinds'. Its counterpart is life emerged by accident, with odds well outside scientific possibilities, and based on premises which have never been proven. Genesis is correct in its mode of categorising from a creational view, while darwin is correct for sub-category differentials separating different forms of land/air/sea based life forms. This is not myth but a different view which is not unscientific at all!Genesis also appears more correct in noting life forms in their origin began as dual-gendered. Genesis also caters to CAUSE AND EFFECT (Creator/Creation), as opposed to the unscientific premise of randomness, and that the universe was eternal and infinite: these are escapist non-answers. There is good science here, and it cannot be denied by your use of 'myth'. If its myth, I challenge you in open forum to show us where science-based medicine comes from? We already know where the first recording of correct life forms grads, in their chronological order comes from - and its not from darwin!Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

I'm sorry but unless you can provide some more info, I need to call: unless you can support: The only Google reference I can find are messages YOU have posted. In addition, I can find no book called MultiVerse and no connection between either the comics of that name or the Michael Morcock references in his SF to an author of that name.I tend to think this is like your fantasy calendar and many of the other fantasies you've posted.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Not all deists believe in creation though.

---

I say they do. Once you track them down, the buck stops with ONE. No alternative here, even when intermediary agents are used.

There is no evidence of a supposedly famous "Roger Penfold" having ever written a book called "MultiVerse."Is all your scholarship this sloppy?

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

I'm sorry, but do you have any reasons why the Bible should be given more weight than any other creation myth?Why is the Biblical Myth and more valid than the Egyptian Myth or the Norse Myth?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

I can find no book called MultiVerse and no connection between either the comics of that name or the Michael Morcock references in his SF to an author of that name.

---

You can hear his interview here, following his book release:SpaceBanter.com
BBC Radio 4's "In our time" had an interview today with Martin Rees,
Roger Penfold and Carolin Crawford, who summarised the current
thinking on these matters.You can hear it onBBC Radio 4 - In Our TimeAbE AA - correct link seems to be BBC Radio 4 - In Our Time, Alchemy--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Hertfordshire
EnglandEdited by AdminAsgara, : gave correct link

I'm sorry but your first link is to some other forum where someone makes such a claim, and at your second link, the only result for "Roger Penfold" is for a clerk at some parrish council Can't you ever get anything right?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Ask where quarks come from, and how new particles ('virtual' particles) are made, inturn responsible for all products in the universe. Here we are told there are 'vibrations' in the eather which excite the quarks ...
Dr:
No. No-one has ever told you that. You made that up.

---

Quarks, when first discovered, was touted as the smallest particle known, one that did not even have another side. It was found when there was a quest to find the smallest, indivisable particle. They were wrong, and soon a nano-universe was found within quarks. It is still one of the smallest particles, which produces virtual particles, and the Omega particle which escapes the electron belt to become independent. This is my understanding from what I've read.

Roger Penrose - WikipediaSir Roger Penrose, Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Maths at Oxford UniversityAre you sure you have the name of the book correct? I can't find that listed.Is is one of these?Edited by AdminAsgara, : added amazon link

quote:

---

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.

---

Not in his last days. He was also nominated for the Presidency of Israel before he died, declaring that science without religion (OT) is lame. One must read between the lines of 'Gd does not play dice', and consider Einstein's history in Germany. There is also no dispute Newton was a feverently religious scientist (link available).

quote:

---

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.

---

Very well said. There is clearly an agenda with those touting 'myth' as their only claim to fame.

quote:

---

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.

---

The issue is not understood by creation rejecters when they demand proof not found in the texts: would they understand such proof 3000 years ago - the OT is written for all generations of man, vindicated here and now by its debating. What is not understood is that science is just another study mode as is math, history and logic. Genesis makes a positation, which can be science, math or history based; it does not give an accompanying summary of proof beside each positaion, in accordance with today's status requirements - this is vindicated by human deliberation and research, according to a generation's knowledge status. Darwin's Evolution resulted from the premise of it indicated in Genesis.I find it amazing that the oldest and most accurate calendar, the first based on both the solar and lunar, is called 'myth' in this forum: it is the only one when examined, and concludes no other way than the earth is not flat but a moving spheare. But this is subject to man's deliberation of it, and its explanation is not accompanied in the OT with today's mode of math, physics and cosmology - nor would this be understand 3000 years ago. This is not acknowledged because of a religious-type reverse agenda displayed by atheists.

quote:

---

Sir Roger Penrose, Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Maths at Oxford University

​

Are you sure you have the name of the book correct?

---

No, I'm not sure of the exact name of the book, but it is about Multiverse. I have read excerpts and essay reviews, and heard him on three interviews, on radio and cable. He came up with film layers separating universes, but his underlying controversial theme is a complexity must lie at the base of the universe's complex structures. He is an atheist science, apparently in contradiction of the Randomness basis of the universe.

OK so when you say Roger Penfold the biologist, you really mean Roger Penrose, the mathematician.Wrong author
Wrong title
Wrong professionI bet your local librarian just loves seeing you

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Soory, I will get another. That heading indicated it was his BBC radio interview.