Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Creationist Method
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 33 of 93 (413242)
07-30-2007 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Jaderis
07-23-2007 9:42 PM


Re: Responses to suggestions so far
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Jaderis, posted 07-23-2007 9:42 PM Jaderis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by anglagard, posted 07-30-2007 3:40 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 38 by ikabod, posted 07-30-2007 4:39 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 34 of 93 (413243)
07-30-2007 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by RAZD
07-22-2007 3:00 PM


Creationism is a Scientific Premise.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2007 3:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2007 10:02 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 36 of 93 (413246)
07-30-2007 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Doddy
07-24-2007 8:36 AM


Re: Responses to suggestions so far
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Doddy, posted 07-24-2007 8:36 AM Doddy has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 37 of 93 (413248)
07-30-2007 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by anglagard
07-30-2007 3:40 AM


Re: Point of Order (or Era)
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by anglagard, posted 07-30-2007 3:40 AM anglagard has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 39 of 93 (413269)
07-30-2007 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by ikabod
07-30-2007 4:39 AM


Re: Responses to suggestions so far
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ikabod, posted 07-30-2007 4:39 AM ikabod has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 52 of 93 (413535)
07-31-2007 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
07-31-2007 10:02 AM


Re: Creationism is NOT a Scientific Premise.
quote:
A scientific premise starts with evidence and builds with logical conclusions.
Science, like math and history, are pathways which give greater understanding of a positation or statute. Science was introduced in Genesis - the first scientific account of the universe. The first scientific equation is that a 'Seed shall follow its kind'; humanity has to affirm this by examinations and verifiable affirmations - via science, math or history - whichever fits the criteria.
Medicine was also inroduced here. The first separation of medicine from the occult is with the ID and treatment of infectious and contagious malignancies (leprosy). All theologies are not about rituals and dogmas: one even contains science, math, history and all the laws followed by the world today!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2007 10:02 AM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Vacate, posted 07-31-2007 10:40 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 54 by dwise1, posted 07-31-2007 12:04 PM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2007 5:31 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 64 of 93 (413703)
08-01-2007 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Vacate
07-31-2007 10:40 AM


Re: Creationism is NOT a Scientific Premise.
quote:
Are you willing to be the one who affirms this by examination? A logical first step, since you claim this so often, would be to define "seed". A good second step would be to define "kind".
'Seed' is absolutely appropriate, anticipating all future generations. Depending on the life form, all transmissions for an offspring are via the seed. The same applies to 'kind' - humans are NOT different by virtue of their bone structure nor the size of their brains. Genesis correctly distinquishes humans by 'speech'. Its deniers will eventually come around - as with all their other failed denials.
That a seed shall follow its own kind, needs no evidencing. It is perhaps the most widely manifest fact in the universe. Its not a theory!
quote:
If you are to continue saying that science must accept this as a valid premise, don't you think that its about time you put forward what the heck you are saying? How many threads are going to be derailed by your kinds and seeds before we are allowed to understand your use of the language?
The issue is the reverse: its denial is the grotesque which needs to be addressed. That evolution does not consider the seed relevent to an offspring is abject denial of the first recording of a scientific equation. It means you have to evidence it as wrong - prove evolution without any translission via the seed. The latter is where science, math and history enters the picture - not before. Both science and medicine has a source point!
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Vacate, posted 07-31-2007 10:40 AM Vacate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 12:16 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 65 of 93 (413704)
08-01-2007 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by arachnophilia
07-31-2007 8:57 PM


Re: Book?
Will contain the role of the seed, and that Genesis contains the first scientific equation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by arachnophilia, posted 07-31-2007 8:57 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 12:18 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 69 of 93 (413708)
08-01-2007 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dr Adequate
07-31-2007 5:31 PM


Re: Lobsters
quote:
Except laws against pedophilia, slavery, genocide, torture, arson, blackmail ...
Yes, carnal knowledge and arson are listed as crimes. Slavery was confronted nowhere else than by the OT laws. Lets hope your science is any better.
quote:
But it does have a rule against lending money at interest, which I'm sure we'd all follow if it wasn't the economic basis of modern civilisation.
Yes, modern banking resulted because Europe's medevial churches accidently left out money lending from its list of decrees bariing jews and other non-christians from every vocation one can imagine.
quote:
Oh, and a stern prohibition against eating lobsters.
True. Half the world is at risk today from consuming shell fish, which are scavengers that consume toxics, and its proper cleansing is not observed. This is a correct advocation, when science was not yet developed. Consumption of shell fish poses a greater risk factor than any other foods - if not properly cleansed, which is very difficult: it can kill or damage for life. Medicine, including the first advocation of washing of hands to eliminate 90% of contact transferred bacteria, was introduced in the OT.
One cannot describe creationism if their knowledge of the OT is so insignificant and distorted. All world accepted laws come from the OT - exclusively. Not a single law accepted by the world's institutions come from any other source. Feel free to name us one!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2007 5:31 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 70 of 93 (413709)
08-01-2007 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Adminastasia
08-01-2007 12:20 AM


Re: Are you guys serious?
Fire away. Or change the name of this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Adminastasia, posted 08-01-2007 12:20 AM Adminastasia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 12:32 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 72 of 93 (413711)
08-01-2007 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by arachnophilia
08-01-2007 12:32 AM


Re: Are you guys serious?
Explain the name of this thread - the only thing not addressed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 12:32 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 12:46 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 74 of 93 (413713)
08-01-2007 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by arachnophilia
08-01-2007 12:46 AM


Re: topic
That's where you get evidence of the 'seed', representing transmissions of life forms - ignored by atheists; that 'kind' represents an evidential proof what separates humans from all other life forms - ignored by atheists. I call it selective atheism, and slight of hand science. I'm not fooled.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 12:46 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 1:28 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 76 of 93 (413717)
08-01-2007 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by arachnophilia
08-01-2007 1:28 AM


Re: topic
This is clever idiocy, not a reference to grammar correction by you. Lower your pupils to 6 0'clock and you may notice it is a response to someone else, which indicates what is being responded to. Correct me in grammer and logic and your own risk.
Seed related to creation (whatever that is!) methodolgy. It is best defined by first acknowledging it and placing it in the preamble whenever you mention evolution. Selective refers to omission of what you don't like, and inclusion of what you like. Yes, now I will wait for you to ask me to define 'seed' - because its listing in genesis cannot be understood by those prefessing science - seed is far more complicated than retroviruses!
Anyways, to cut to the chase scene and escape the selective naivity display, a retraction is in order of those who cannot understand what a seed refers to (whatever that means!), why genesis refers to 'kind' and gives humans a correct category, those who decried about lobsters while ignoring where medicine comes from - and not least, those who deem my responsa off topic - in a thread that wants to discuss methodology of creation! Don't be shy - unless you want to disgrace science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 1:28 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 2:51 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 80 by Adminastasia, posted 08-01-2007 11:57 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 77 of 93 (413721)
08-01-2007 2:40 AM


OF SELECTIVE DEMENTIA POSED AS 'SCIENCE'.
'SEED' (whatever that is!) has a verifiable impact of at least 99% of all transmissions in life forms. And we don't have to go millions of years to know this - its real science in your midst, but not addressed by evolutionists:
quote:
11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
'KIND'
This is best alluded to when one is asked to place groups of life forms in accordance of their unique attributes. Genesis places humans as one kind - 'seed after its kind' - because humans also happen to be the only life form which perform this feat of 'speech'. Its called Creation Methodology - not addressed by evolutionists.
'EVOLUTION' - the chronological graduation of life forms, grouped as 'KINDS' by their differential attributes - first recorded in genesis - yet not acknowledged by Evolutionists.
Shall we discuss evolution without the seed?
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by AdminNosy, posted 08-01-2007 2:58 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024