The roots of Creation Science and Darwinism

Although I never said that, the Bible does exhibit the faults that I presented and that you failed to address. You also seem totally ignorant of Satan's function. In the Bible Satan is simply the tester, doing only the will of God.Have you ever even read the Bible.Let me repeat those issues that you failed, as expected, to address:

quote:

---

It is certainly not Scientific Evidence.

​

It is evidence that certain stories were written.

​

BUT, it is also an anonymous source with only a very few exceptions.

​

It is primarily hearsay.

​

It is filled with inconsistencies, contradictions and factual errors.

​

Finally there is not even such a thing as "The Bible" or one single universal list of what books should be included in "The Bible"; rather the contents of The Bible varies from the smallest having only the first five books and the largest having over eighty books.

​

Even the Qur'an is more reliable evidence than any Bible. It has only a single known and verified by outside sources author.

​

But you still have not provided any evidence of any Spiritual beings or Spiritual Forces.

​

And the fact that you titled this topic Creation Science when such a thing is absolutely and totally impossible is just another indicator that you really have no clue what Science is.

---

from Message 72.You should understand that I am a Cradle Creedal Christian, a member of one of the RECOGNIZED Chapters of Club Christian, educated in a Christian family and Christian schools so don't try to get away with any of your Christian Cult of Ignorance and Dishonesty with me.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Ooooh look! It's going full Rumpelstiltskin.Perhaps you should stamp your tiny little little intellectual feet a bit harder.

Please reread my previous comment, it is edited.So, Bible is not evidence of Spirits, because it is evidence of Spirits? How stupid atheism sounds?

No, the Bible is not evidence of spirits because claims don't constitute evidence. Doesn't seem all that complicated or hard to understand. Glass houses....? Didn't help the content any.

No. Some gods are more plausible than others. The one you wish for is not very plausible.

only because you hold Him to the descriptions in the book from a critical standpoint and also because you dont like the idea of surrendering your human freedom to what you see as a cult of personality.

What cult of personality?

No, I'm going by your description. Some of the descriptions in the book are certainly more plausible than yours. Yours is a cherry-picked description.

Granted I did not think my replies through. Lets start again.Concerning Creation Science. How does it differ from mainstream science?

There cannot be such a thing as Creation Science; it is simply an oxymoron at best, a dishonest jest in reality.Creationism begins with a conclusion; that a God exists and created everything.Beginning with the conclusion excludes it from the realm of Science.

Well, science, obviously.

"Creation science" is to science as Long John Silver is to a silver tea set. The tea set exists; Long John Silver does not. The similarity of one word is coincidental.

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
Statement of Faith | Answers in Genesis The lack of a null hypothesis, hence the lack of a testable hypothesis, is a rather glaring difference.

Hohum, how many years here Phat and apparently learned nothing?Creation science, like alternative medicine, has one unnecessary descriptor. If alternative medicine worked it would just be called medicine.