Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,906 Year: 4,163/9,624 Month: 1,034/974 Week: 361/286 Day: 4/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   People Don't Know What Creation Science Is
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5525 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 217 of 336 (501474)
03-06-2009 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Coyote
03-06-2009 12:00 PM


You are confused
Creationists only reject the idea of macroevolution--changes that take simpler forms and improve to more complex forms. You know what I am refering to. We reject that microevolution extrapolates into macroevolution. Mutatations and selection are a design implicitly present in the DNA code and cannot go beyond that which is already present. Improvement within a kind, yes. But even these so called improvements are really not improvement in the overall system. Too much mutation eventually leads to cancer.
That's okay if you want to stop debating me. I don't really feel like anyone here is interested in honest debate anyway. You all have a herd mentality and you are smug and oh so self-assured--as wrong as I know that you are.
I really need to get this computer monkey off-my-back anyway!!
Carry on. The choir awaits you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Coyote, posted 03-06-2009 12:00 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by olivortex, posted 03-06-2009 12:21 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 240 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-06-2009 1:17 PM Kelly has not replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5525 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 219 of 336 (501476)
03-06-2009 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by New Cat's Eye
03-06-2009 12:06 PM


Re: Creationists would disagree with this too
Because the first and second laws of thermodynamics preclude it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2009 12:06 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Coragyps, posted 03-06-2009 12:21 PM Kelly has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5525 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 223 of 336 (501481)
03-06-2009 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Dr Jack
03-06-2009 12:17 PM


The predictions have been made.
The evidence confirms the creation model better than the evolution model. Most known facts that confirm the creation model were made long before Darwin, and by creation scientists.
As far as is known, the scientists of the past listed below believed in a literal Genesis unless indicated with an asterisk. The ones who did not are nevertheless included in the list below because of their general belief in the creator God of the Bible and opposition to evolution.
Note: These scientists are sorted by birth year.
Early
Francis Bacon (1561—1626) Scientific method. However, see also
Culture Wars:
Galileo Galilei (1564—1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
Johann Kepler (1571—1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
Athanasius Kircher (1601—1680) Inventor
John Wilkins (1614—1672)
Walter Charleton (1619—1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623—1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
Sir William Petty (1623 —1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
Robert Boyle (1627—1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
John Ray (1627—1705) Natural history
Isaac Barrow (1630—1677) Professor of Mathematics
Nicolas Steno (1631—1686) Stratigraphy
Thomas Burnet (1635—1715) Geology
Increase Mather (1639—1723) Astronomy
Nehemiah Grew (1641—1712) Medical Doctor, Botany
The Age of Newton
Isaac Newton (1642—1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the TrinitySee Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57—80, 1997)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646—1716) Mathematician
John Flamsteed (1646—1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
William Derham (1657—1735) Ecology
Cotton Mather (1662—1727) Physician
John Harris (1666—1719) Mathematician
John Woodward (1665—1728) Paleontology
William Whiston (1667—1752) Physics, Geology
John Hutchinson (1674—1737) Paleontology
Johathan Edwards (1703—1758) Physics, Meteorology
Carolus Linneaus (1707—1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
Jean Deluc (1727—1817) Geology
Richard Kirwan (1733—1812) Mineralogy
William Herschel (1738—1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
James Parkinson (1755—1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
John Dalton (1766—1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
John Kidd, M.D. (1775—1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)
Just Before Darwin
The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr. Terry Mortenson
Timothy Dwight (1752—1817) Educator
William Kirby (1759—1850) Entomologist
Jedidiah Morse (1761—1826) Geographer
Benjamin Barton (1766—1815) Botanist; Zoologist
John Dalton (1766—1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
Georges Cuvier (1769—1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Samuel Miller (1770—1840) Clergy
Charles Bell (1774—1842) Anatomist
John Kidd (1775—1851) Chemistry
Humphrey Davy (1778—1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
Benjamin Silliman (1779—1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
Peter Mark Roget (1779—1869) Physician; Physiologist
Thomas Chalmers (1780—1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
David Brewster (1781—1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
William Buckland (1784—1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
William Prout (1785—1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
Adam Sedgwick (1785—1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Michael Faraday (1791—1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
Samuel F.B. Morse (1791—1872) Telegraph
John Herschel (1792—1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
Edward Hitchcock (1793—1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
William Whewell (1794—1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
Joseph Henry (1797—1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer
AIG
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2009 12:17 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2009 12:36 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 229 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2009 12:38 PM Kelly has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5525 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 224 of 336 (501482)
03-06-2009 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by olivortex
03-06-2009 12:21 PM


Very old texts?
That's funny considering Darwin and all...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by olivortex, posted 03-06-2009 12:21 PM olivortex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2009 12:30 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 236 by olivortex, posted 03-06-2009 12:57 PM Kelly has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5525 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 226 of 336 (501484)
03-06-2009 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Coragyps
03-06-2009 12:21 PM


You seem mad
Why is that?
I think I have done a fairly good job at trying to express how it is that creation science is a scientific study of the evidence just as evolution is..I mean, at least to the degree that it is possible, anyway.
You seem unnerved by the possibility that creation could have a leg to stand on. Is that because it might then give some credence to Scripture for those of us who have faith in God? I only ask this because most Catholics do not want to accept Scripture as the authority of God. Would this shake things up for you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Coragyps, posted 03-06-2009 12:21 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2009 12:37 PM Kelly has not replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5525 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 233 of 336 (501491)
03-06-2009 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Modulous
03-06-2009 12:38 PM


It was a matter of bandwidth, really
Just After Darwin...
Richard Owen (1804—1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Matthew Maury (1806—1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Louis Agassiz (1807—1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
Henry Rogers (1808—1866) Geology
James Glaisher (1809—1903) Meteorology
Philip H. Gosse (1810—1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810—1895) Archeologist
James Simpson (1811—1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
James Dana (1813—1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817—1901) Agricultural Chemist
James Joule (1818—1889) Thermodynamics
Thomas Anderson (1819—1874) Chemist
Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819—1900) Astronomy
George Stokes (1819—1903) Fluid Mechanics
John William Dawson (1820—1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Rudolph Virchow (1821—1902) Pathology
Gregor Mendel (1822—1884) (WOH) Genetics
Louis Pasteur (1822—1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
Henri Fabre (1823—1915) Entomology of living insects
William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824—1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
William Huggins (1824—1910) Astral spectrometry
Bernhard Riemann (1826—1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
Joseph Lister (1827—1912) Antiseptic surgery
Balfour Stewart (1828—1887) Ionospheric electricity
James Clerk Maxwell (1831—1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
P.G. Tait (1831—1901) Vector analysis
John Bell Pettigrew (1834—1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842—1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
Sir William Abney (1843—1920) Astronomy
Alexander MacAlister (1844—1919) Anatomy
A.H. Sayce (1845—1933) Archeologist
John Ambrose Fleming (1849—1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation....
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. Andr Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918—2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915—1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892—1979) Surgeon
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
And I disagree about your statement that any of those predictions from the creation model have failed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2009 12:38 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2009 1:10 PM Kelly has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5525 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 234 of 336 (501493)
03-06-2009 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Percy
03-06-2009 12:46 PM


That's an extrapolation
And Creation Science does a very good job at proving why it is impossible. It boils down to the universal laws of conservation and decay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Percy, posted 03-06-2009 12:46 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by onifre, posted 03-06-2009 1:07 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 295 by Percy, posted 03-06-2009 6:53 PM Kelly has not replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5525 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 235 of 336 (501494)
03-06-2009 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Coyote
03-06-2009 12:46 PM


You just confirm my point..
And that is that there are many of you here in this forum who just do not know what creation science really is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Coyote, posted 03-06-2009 12:46 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by onifre, posted 03-06-2009 1:08 PM Kelly has not replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5525 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 241 of 336 (501500)
03-06-2009 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by olivortex
03-06-2009 12:57 PM


I think you are right about this
"..he fought his inner self because of what he has observed and concluded"
I just don't think it was in the way you think.
Darwin knew that his exptrapolation--his assumptions and "hopeful monsters" would be dead in the water if the evidence couldn't be found to support his ideas. He was convinced that eventually the fossil record would come to prove macroevolution and therefore support his theory. But this means that his theory came first--not based on the evidence, but in spite of no evidence yet, and just on an idea. This is really no different if you want to accuse creationists of starting with an idea first. For biblical creationists, the Bible is their source and foundation and guide. But for Creation Scientists, their study is done apart from the Bible or God--it isn't looking to prove religion, just creation, isn't isn't looking to confirm biblcal stories, just created order.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by olivortex, posted 03-06-2009 12:57 PM olivortex has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Granny Magda, posted 03-06-2009 1:42 PM Kelly has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5525 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 243 of 336 (501503)
03-06-2009 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Modulous
03-06-2009 1:10 PM


I already have defended my point
with reasons and theories from the creation model, confirmed with actual agreed upon universal laws such as the first and second laws of thermodynamics. You can disagree with me, but please don't claim that I didn't state and support my claims.
I am really not up to the monumental task of responding to all these posts and people. I just wanted to show *why* creation science is a science. I think I have given you a pretty good idea of how it works and if you are truly interested, I recommended a very good book called "What is Creation Science?" by Morris/Parker.
Thanks for playing, but I really do have to shake this computer monkey off my back and join the real world. Kids getting home from school soon and a hubby who doesn't like it when I spend too much time on the computer like this.
Enjoy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2009 1:10 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2009 1:58 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 245 by Dman, posted 03-06-2009 2:08 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 252 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2009 2:39 PM Kelly has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5525 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 246 of 336 (501506)
03-06-2009 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by New Cat's Eye
03-06-2009 1:58 PM


You only hope I failed
because the consequences of ignoring the truth of God's Word are unthinkable for you, since calling yourself Catholic, I assume you are a believer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2009 1:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2009 2:19 PM Kelly has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5525 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 248 of 336 (501508)
03-06-2009 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by New Cat's Eye
03-06-2009 2:19 PM


Re: You only hope I failed
Creation Science itself is a study of the evidence, not of God or the Bible. It has nothing to do with religion or God directly. However, for those who have faith in God, it has consequences. If the Bible is truth, then how we respond to it matters alot.
I also answered this question: "How does creation science not violate the second laws of thermodynamics?" when it was asked by someone else. I am not going to keep answering the same thing everytime someone else wants to ask it. You are either following along or you aren't. Somehow I think you are since you seem to *think* I am avoiding answering as if you know it was asked before. Go back and reread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2009 2:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2009 2:38 PM Kelly has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5525 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 249 of 336 (501509)
03-06-2009 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Dman
03-06-2009 2:08 PM


Keep patting yourselves on the back.
I find it comical, actually. This claim that I have failed to make my point or that I am ducking questions is too funny for words considering the amount of posting I have done and continue to do to explain my position. The truth is that you disagree. But that is a far cry from proving me wrong.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Dman, posted 03-06-2009 2:08 PM Dman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Dman, posted 03-06-2009 2:42 PM Kelly has not replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5525 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 251 of 336 (501511)
03-06-2009 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Granny Magda
03-06-2009 1:42 PM


This is silly
AIG can do and say and believe what it wants to. So can I and so can you. This still has nothing to do with what the actual study in creation science is about. It is a study of the evidence, not of God. The fact that creation points to a creator is actually besides the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Granny Magda, posted 03-06-2009 1:42 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Granny Magda, posted 03-06-2009 4:52 PM Kelly has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5525 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 253 of 336 (501513)
03-06-2009 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by New Cat's Eye
03-06-2009 2:38 PM


I brought God up because you are supposedly
a man of faith?
I wondered why you, personally, are so opposed to discovering that life might be created rather than evolved?
It was a sidenote to you, personally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2009 2:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2009 2:44 PM Kelly has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024