|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5909 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Creationist Method | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: '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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Will contain the role of the seed, and that Genesis contains the first scientific equation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Fire away. Or change the name of this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Explain the name of this thread - the only thing not addressed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
'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: '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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024