The Creationist Method

Yep, don't need the 'perhaps'. An observation either contradicts scripture or the interpretation of scripture, or it does not. Or it is inconclusive, in which case, who cares? So, didn't you ask for a chart which included old earthers?

Yes, and I'm glad my chart works for that. But the key part of what I said was:

quote:

---

This observation doesn't support six-day creation. In fact, it might contradict it.

---

Is it a contradiction, or isn't it? Or is is a 'perhaps'.I'm totally lost as to how to arrange that part of the chart accurately.

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today! We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.

​

Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!

quote:

---

That is why we debate about Noah's flood. It is a falsifiable concept (and has been falsified), at least, until someone comes along and says "Well Goddidit" to explain away any inconsistencies pointed out about their theory or ignore the evidence against such a thing ever having occured.

---

Noah's flood has not been disproven. It is more credible as a regional disaster, which would have represented the then known world (some 5500 years ago), and the animals would be domestic ones. Including then unknown areas and countries would be superfluos, and an unreasonable conclusion. It is more credible than the theory of the jurasic age being wiped out by a meteor.

quote:

---

This applies to all faith systems where evidence cannot invalidate belief:

​

There is no testing of information, evidence or faith, it's just a pass-fail system.

---

The most infantile and unscientific question is vested in the demand for proof of creation. Mostly, the questioner has no understanding of his question. Creationism is the ultimate scientific premise, with no alternative options, as at all of today's state of art sciences.If creationism can be proven - it would be the most positive proof against it. But not so with proving such premises as the BBT & TOE, which is concerned with 'in-universe'' paradigm, unlike creationism, which is an 'outside universe' one.The applicable factors of creationism include:The universe is finite; subsequently and logically, all universal contained components are THIS side of creation, and never and do not exist outside it - this includes science, math, history, matter, time, life, energy, etc - factors which become mute and irrelevent in contemplating the universe origins. This is not the case with proving other factors, and has nothing else which is of equivalence. Yet only the irrelevent factors are posited here, which shows only a lack of proper perspective.I suggest that a preamble be established first, then follow its course appropriately. One of the pivotal factors is to define what factors would apply within and without the existing universe, which must at all times correspond with the premise of an actual (not symbolic) premise of infinity and finity; the issue of 'cause and effect' must then be observed by the criteria vested in the preamble. This would be a first step in any understanding of creationism.Q: Is the universe finite - and what constitutes infinity; what are its attributes and values? One cannot discuss creationism without these preambles. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Are you referring to the boundary between the Mesozoic and the Cenozoic eras which is at the end of the Cretaceous period? Are you referring to the Chicxulub meteor event?See here if you don't know what I am referring to: Cretaceous—Paleogene extinction event - WikipediaWhat is the "theory of the jurasic (sic) age being wiped out by a meteor?"

---

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

When one asks if holy scripture is true to science, two answers are resultant. 1. The OT is the source for creationism and its provisions, which is not described in any other scripture in a manner which can be discussed scientifically. 2. Creationism is fully backed by science, which was introduced in the OT.Genesis affirms 'cause and effect'; non-creationism does not. This does not require proof; the cause factor is not even addressed outside of creationism. Randomness is a negation, not a form of 'cause'; the cause has to be, at least, transcendent of its effect. The premise of accumulated and self-generating cause, as is randomness, an unscientific premise, because they negate the premise of a finite and intergrated universe. An accumulated or self-generated causative factor contradicts the finite premise, because it points to factors which are infinite, thus requiring no explanation. Better, that it is discarded for what it is: a contradiction, as well as a delfective, unscientific premise. Resorting to infinite is not a scientific response - iagine positing such for gravity today!

A written report, with cross-reference reports from the same vicinity and timespace, of a flood in a region common for such events, is not less credible than an academic one about how dinosaurs disappeared, is my point.Its about natural (worldly) and un-natural (non-worldly) disasters. Many species have become extinct, without the aid of inter-galactic space bodies bombardments; eg: evolutionary speciation premises. Dinosaurs and human civilisation could not prevail together. Dinosaurs were not limited to one vicinity of the impact zone.

arr so you CHANGE what is said in the book from global event to a regional one .. odd the book does not make that clear .. in fact gives totally to oppersite view ....is any one allowed to revise the meaning of the writing ? or just the select ?i mean was noah really 950 years old when he died ..?
did giant Og, king of Bashan, sit on the roof of the ark ??
if the reason for the flood was to remove the evil elements from mankind .. and it was only a regional flood ..how does that work ?
Mnt Ararat is about 5000m tall and that was covered ..not a small regional flood then ...soory if i got wrong hill let say 4000m still a big flood ..also the know world then was quite large let see people where framing in Wales .. did it flood there ? pots where being cast in Pakistan .. was that part of the regional flood .. this is the era of the bronze age .. cornish tin trades with citys of the greek islands and coast , the known world was huge ... or did noah live in a isolated valley ??

Yes, Bashan hitchiking says it was a regional flood. Wales, Pakistan would not be in this region's radar at this time: even Babylon did not know of the existence of Egypt in its early periods. The flood is not in dispute - only its size is the issue. All the historical details surrounding this event are authentic, and to the peoples in this region, it would have been the same as a worldly flood. Human lifespans were different then, as was the length of days; these change after Moses to 120 years max, then decrease and are inclined to the 120 again today.

My thread! What have you done?!Get it back on track now! There are plenty of other threads and forums to address these issues. There's a whole forum on Noachian flood stuff. Unless you are going to talk about the methods that creationists use to interpret evidence/scripture, please leave. I won't have another of my threads hijacked.Edited by Doddy, : title

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today! We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.

​

Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!

The very bottom box where it says "Manipulate and/or reinterpret observations"... I think this should get re-worded.If you don't use the word "manipulate" here, you may even have some creationists find your flow-chart to be representative of what they do.Reword options:"Re-interpret observations"
or
"Make corrections to interpretation of observations"This is what Creationists actually say, isn't it? That the evidence isn't wrong, simply the interpretation of it? I think this box should attempt to display what Creationists say they are doing rather than what we may think they're actually doing. The word "manipulate" has obvious negative tones in it which I don't see anyone agreeing with.Besides, anyone who understands that they do "manipulate" will understand the flow-chart just as well without that word actually in there.

Sure it is a 'perhaps'. But what does science do with 'maybes'? Is that option on your evo chart?Isn't 'reinterpret scripture' suitable for making creation longer, or making more than one creation? Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

IamJoseph, please don't reply in this thread unless you're making a contribution to Doddy's efforts here.No more talk of Noah unless it is by way of example of an issue with his chart.angla and ika, you know better!

---

The problem with your approach is that you assume there is a method to the madness that is Biblical Creationism.There isn't.In IamJospeh's posts, you are seeing the creationist method in action.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

There is method to all madness. A strange method, perhaps, and certainly one that doesn't work well to determine reality, but a method nonetheless.

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today! We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.

​

Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!