Re: Again, the Geo Column shows the absurdity of the OE/ToE
you meant message 435 not 235.
Hold your horses. I've been dragged into this discussion kicking and screaming, I didn't want to pursue my whole argument on this thread, I simply wanted to restate my points which are going to remain standing anyway you know because none of the rebuttals have ever dealt with them and it's time somebody acknowledged their validity. Not that I'm holding my breath. In this environment they will NEVER get a fair hearing.
BUT I WILL NOW TAKE A BREAK FROM THIS MESS AND DEAL WITH THE POSTS YOU REFER ME TO LATER.
And thank you for ceasing toning down your abusive personal attacks.
What if there is a God who made it all and your atheistic science just completely misses it?
Yes that should be your only stance Faith. God doesn't show us His existence by objective evidence after Jesus. You must believe by faith, Faith. John 3:16.
You and all of creation science are wasting their time trying to prove God's existence. That's not how it works. Man had their chance. God showed us His existence over and over in the old testament. It didn't work. Maybe it was never meant to work. We don't know God's ways. You are wasting your time trying to prove the flood happened.
I started this thread not to prove that the flood happened, only to prove that there is evidence of a flood. We just choose to ignore it. If you are a real scientist you cannot ignore all the evidence. We don't have all the evidence. I started this thread to make a point that nothing is ever proven, and that everything takes faith. To believe the sun will rise tomorrow takes faith. Atheists like to live their lives by objective evidence are wrong. The world is full of subjective things, and we all live by something subjective(love/hate). So to dismiss something merely on the fact that it is subjective is hypocritical. It is an objective fact subjectivity exists.
Just for the record I don't follow much of what is known as Creation Science, though I've gotten some leads from them, but mostly I think it all through on my own. And I'm not trying to prove God this way, I simply happen to think that there is evidence in the physical world that strongly supports the Flood and does not support the establishment point of view. I'd LOVE to blast the false theory of evolution into the next millennium and I believe the evidence is there, really there whether you or anybody else sees it or not. Jesus will probably have come back well before the next millennium anyway and then they'll know, but it would be SO satisfying to blast the smithereens out of that mind and soul destroyer before then..
. The world is full of subjective things, and we all live by something subjective(love/hate).
Subjective does not mean evaluating things without evidence or based on feelings. It means making decisions based on things that are not quantitative. Things like beauty and hate can be evidence-based even though they are subjective concepts. But believing something because you want to believe it or because you were taught is not subjective. Instead, it is a type of reasoning for which science has absolutely no use.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey
We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
And there is obviously one species of "mammal" with four limbs, a pelvis, a spine with a cranium at the end, teeth in nearly all cases,.... Just a lot of varieties, like big and little. Kind of like trilobites, come to think of it.
Why stop with mammals? Why not include reptiles, whatever group they together belong to? They also could be described in much the same terms as mammals. What's the next category up? It could probably make a species too if we put our minds to it.
In other words, we need more specificity here. But not as much specificity that we have a bunch of different species of trilobites. I don't find it hard to split the pie myself, but perhaps you do?
This site exists to discuss the claim that creation science *is* science, in the real sense of the word.
No True Scottsman?
Creation science is research, which is part of science, but it is not real science because of it's predetermined idea of what the result should be. That doesn't mean real scientists can't use any data collected during creation science. We just can't use their conclusions.
The Flood side take evidence as mere excuses to reach a conclusion. The case of "Harvey" the hawk might support a few animals taking refuge on the Ark, but hardly pairs of everything. There is no attempt to understand or reason from the basic facts, let alone consider the wider context - one animal did it therefore all must do it instinctively. Which is completely ridiculous.
Faith is even worse citing her personal opinions as "observable facts" - even as being so obvious as to be beyond question - while the views of those who have actually made detailed observations are simply rejected out of hand. Even when her claims are clearly false.
Not only does Faith ignore the many rebuttals to her claims she outright denies that they exist - which is by any sane standard lying. Added to that a bunch of hypocritical whining trying to pretend that it is her opponents at fault for not sharing her ridiculous and obvious bias. It's not a pretty sight.