ForumGarden

Those are the facts of the wannabees.

LarsMac;1499541 wrote: "Evidence-Free Speculation" at its best.


Here is more on the subject.



Creation science is the systematic study of nature by scientists holding to the creationist worldview, which asserts that the cosmos and life on Earth are the result of a supernatural or intelligent causation. The term (also known as Scientific creationism) is most often used in connection with religious concepts of creation -- specifically, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic understanding of creation, based on the accounts of Genesis and the Qur'an. It is also frequently applied to describe the defense of creationism on scientific grounds.

Creation science is primarily concerned with two issues:

Understanding the discoveries of science within the interpretive framework of creationism;

Documenting and demonstrating how the findings of science are consistent with creationism and inconsistent with evolutionary theory;

Most creationist research focuses on issues related to the origin or history of the universe, Earth, and life. Each of these areas of scientific inquiry are analyzed by creation scientists who hold to various postulates regarding the extent to which natural processes were responsible. The most divisive topics are those that address chronology, as there are many who believe the cosmos to be billions of years old, while others hold it to be much younger than modern science asserts.

In contrast to religious creationism, intelligent design (ID) posits that certain aspects of the physical universe (particularly life) are designed, but makes no specific claims regarding the identity of the designer. Although typically considered a subset of creation science, ID is distinguished by the absence of presuppositions regarding a creation. ID has instead developed as a field of inquiry to study the empirical scientific evidence of design that has been discovered in nature.

Premises

Main Page: Philosophy of science

Creation science is premised on several ideas:

Science is by definition a human effort to understand the universe.

There is nothing "unscientific" about believing that life was deliberately created. Just as it is scientific to study the Pyramids and Parthenon as having been created at a particular time by a particular creator, it is scientific to study life as having been designed at a particular time by a particular creator.

The historical book of Genesis provides a verifiable, falsifiable record of events which can be evidenced and understood scientifically. In particular, the Great Flood had an extraordinary effect on the Earth's geology which can be evidenced and studied.

Much of the creation vs. evolution conflict revolves around determining which ideas are "facts" and which are "interpretations" of fact. For the most part, the same actual facts, observations, and repeatable phenomena are common to scientists of all philosophies. The divergence comes in the approach to them, and in the interpretation of them.

Creation scientists use the same scientific method, but simply operate under the presupposition that God designed and assembled our world when forming theories. The number of scientists populating the creation paradigm has risen sharply in recent decades, and hence the issues in scientific creationism have abounded.

Disciplines

Creation science is limited in scope, focusing on issues relevant to the origin of things. As such, it does not differ from mainstream science on many issues that are observable today, such as the function of gravity or the composition of the sun.

Principal subjects of research in scientific creationism are:

Astronomy

Cosmic chronology

Geochronology

Flood geology

Biological evolution

Baraminology (Creation taxonomy)

Cosmology

Biblical Archaeology

Biblical chronology

Considerations

A few notes are in order regarding this topic due to its controversial nature.

It is patently impossible to adequately discuss creation science without referencing creationist journals. It is practically impossible for a scientists to publish a creationist paper in a secular journal, and it is claimed that journals have even pulled support for papers post-approval when it was discovered that one or both of the authors had creationist leanings. Therefore, be advised that, while many of the papers under discussion are peer-reviewed, they are peer-reviewed by scientists who are themselves generally creationists, possibly removing one bias for another.

When used here the term theory refers to a model which describes evidence, and hopefully, makes predictions. It is therefore not meant in the informal sense of conjecture, but neither is it meant to implied that has gained currency in the mainstream. hypothesis could easily be used instead.

This site describes the principal work of creationists, which typically revolve around showing difficulties with the superstructure of modern science. In general, creation sciences do not attempt to prove creation directly anymore than secular scientists attempt to prove uniformitarianism or abiogenesis. The research of creation scientists falls into two general areas:

Showing that their beliefs are not incompatible with known observations

Showing that modern day observables challenge some basic tenets of modern science (e.g. an old earth, evolution, abiogenesis)

Both of these basic areas of research are treated here, but it must be understood that creationists typically rely on a type of argument from silence. They suggest that if the universe is young, abiogenesis is untenable, or the modern-day diversity of life cannot be explained via evolution, then their general axioms are more reasonable than any other way of explaining our modern earth. This argument by silence is, of course, not air-tight, but neither is it the case that, for example, a young earth theory of evolution exists.

Creation science - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

can you say "Oxymoron"

Isn’t it absurd for evolutionists to ridicule creationists for believing God made everything out of nothing while evolutionists maintain that somehow nothing turned itself into everything?

Atheists and evolutionist have no evidence to support their position and instead of looking for rational answers they spend their time ridiculing creationists for believing God made everything out of nothing while they agree with evolutionists who maintain that somehow nothing turned itself into everything. Isn’t that absurd and pathetic? And they continue to deny the evidence for God's existence.



Instead of endless philosophical discussions to prove a point, doesn’t observation and experiment become the final arbitrator of truth? The issue becomes a bit sticky when discussing origins. How do we test the hypothesis of evolution? We don't have the luxury of having a miniature universe with eons of time in the corner of a laboratory. So this leaves both evolutionists and creationists in the same boat: no absolute way to objectively test their assertions. There are no human eyewitnesses. Both are left to propose a model and then compare it with the facts of science for consistency. Notice too, that good hypotheses are falsifiable. Now consider the theory of evolution; how can it be proved false? What fraction of the theory of evolution is open to invalidation, some small detail, or the entire principle? The approach seems to be, "look, you're here and there is no intelligent designer so evolution must be true!" Is this science or something else?

Pahu;1499591 wrote: Isn’t it absurd for evolutionists to ridicule creationists for believing God made everything out of nothing while evolutionists maintain that somehow nothing turned itself into everything?

Atheists and evolutionist have no evidence to support their position and instead of looking for rational answers they spend their time ridiculing creationists for believing God made everything out of nothing while they agree with evolutionists who maintain that somehow nothing turned itself into everything. Isn’t that absurd and pathetic? And they continue to deny the evidence for God's existence.



Instead of endless philosophical discussions to prove a point, doesn’t observation and experiment become the final arbitrator of truth? The issue becomes a bit sticky when discussing origins. How do we test the hypothesis of evolution? We don't have the luxury of having a miniature universe with eons of time in the corner of a laboratory. So this leaves both evolutionists and creationists in the same boat: no absolute way to objectively test their assertions. There are no human eyewitnesses. Both are left to propose a model and then compare it with the facts of science for consistency. Notice too, that good hypotheses are falsifiable. Now consider the theory of evolution; how can it be proved false? What fraction of the theory of evolution is open to invalidation, some small detail, or the entire principle? The approach seems to be, "look, you're here and there is no intelligent designer so evolution must be true!" Is this science or something else?


Well, I don't really know what an "Evolutionist" is.

I simply believe that the science will tell us a lot of what we really want to know about the Universe. It will take time to answer all the questions. Hell. It will take time to even figure out what a lot of the questions really should be.

To think that we have all the answers, already, from a group of Bronze and Iron Age philosopher-Warriors strikes me as completely absurd.

It does seem fairly clear to me that the Universe is far older than some 6 to 10 thousand years old (The fact that Creationists can't even agree on THAT part, to me, is actually rather encouraging.)



And, Evolution is a scientifically observed phenomenon. Your attempts at denying that simple fact, and your failure to even show any actually verifiable science, after all the time you've been posting to this thread tells me that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

And, while I believe the science, I have yet to deny God's existence, even though I deny your weak presentations and failure to provide any evidence that he does.

God does not need your "evidence"

Evolution does NOT claim to have made anything out of nothing. The whole nature of Evolution is a process of CHANGING. In order to change something, that something must first exist. I can change flour, yeast & water into a loaf of bread, but without any of those ingredients first being present, this is not possible. Evolution is NOT Creation of anything. You keep saying that Evolutionists claim to have created something out of nothing. This is simply not true. If that's what you believe Evolutionism is, then you should do some study into learning just what Evolution IS. In fact, in many ways, theoretically Evolution is actually compatible with Creationism. Take for instance the premise (not that I subscribe to it, but for argument's sake) that there was a God, and that he suddenly decided that he was a bit bored, so for a giggle he decides to create the Heavens & the Earth. BUT, as part of this grand scheme he also includes a dollop of Primordial Slime. Life. At which point, Evolution begins - there is something to change. The rest is history. It is not something from nothing. That is an entirely different subject.

As for your "positive" quotes - just where are these "quotes" to be found apart from in your magic story book. Where are the references of those that supposedly make the quotes? With the famous mis-quote taken from Hawking, all that was needed to do was to put a section of the quote into Google, and the entire quote would come up in its entirety. However, when you do the same thing with any of the others, the only links that come up are link to In The Beginning, and your many posting is other forums pasting the same drivel. Pasting a self effacing quote from the very book it's supposed to be about is NOT a reference. In fact, it demonstrates even more likelihood of it being entirely fake, as it is allegedly a quote about the book it's actually in, which means that the quote would have had to have been made before the book was published. When I challenged you to provide references, I didn't mean just more quotes from that self same book. I mean independent sources. For instance, Brown (aka you) are constantly making reference to claims that he is supported in reviews in New Scientist. Ok. Just come up with one link to an online New Scientist issue that says anything about him. If he is commended in there so much as he claims, that should not be that difficult to find. I repeat - source NOT PROVIDED BY WALT BROWN'S BOOK. That is the whole point of the challenge - for you to find something to back up the claims independently. And before you do your usual trick of coming up with Creationist websites that merely cite quotations from the same book, that doesn't count either.

Pahu;1499537 wrote: Since science proves the existence of God, we can consider this:


Since the entire argument is based on a false premise, the remainder of the argument is also invalid.

Science has NOT proved the existence of a God. If it had there wouldn't be any matter of contention. Nor does Science disprove the existence of a God. It cannot prove the existence of something that has no evidence to work on. Nor does Science disprove anything (except in proving the opposite to be true - e.g. It was originally thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth. It was later proved that the Earth revolved around the Sun. This means that it was only incidental that Science disproved the initial theory). If the existence of a God had been proved, the non-existence would incidentally be disproved. Neither case is so. Therefore you cannot base a case on something that is not so. I could just as easily say that Science has proved the existence of flying pink elephants. This means that this is why their wing span is so vast, so as to compensate for the extra weight. However, because the membrane is so thin, they become invisible to the naked eye, which is why they have never been observed. It is also known that under the laws of aero dynamics that Bumble Bees can't fly because of their weight to wing surface area ratio. However, when you apply the aero dynamics of a helicopter to them, this explains how they manage to fly. The same qualities, therefore, must apply to the flying pink elephants. This is using the exact same logic as you are basing your argument. Everything is founded on that initial premise.

LarsMac;1499592 wrote: Well, I don't really know what an "Evolutionist" is.


An evolutionist is one who believes evolution is true despite evidence to the contrary.

I simply believe that the science will tell us a lot of what we really want to know about the Universe. It will take time to answer all the questions. Hell. It will take time to even figure out what a lot of the questions really should be.

To think that we have all the answers, already, from a group of Bronze and Iron Age philosopher-Warriors strikes me as completely absurd.


Assuming you are referring to the writers of the Bible, here are some facts:

1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:



The Rocks Cry Out

In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net

Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net

http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record

http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm



2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:



Scientific Facts in The Bible

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible



3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

100prophecies.org

http://www.raptureforums.com/BibleProph ... stdays.cfm

About Bible Prophecy

Bible Prophecies Fulfilled

Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

Bible Prophecy



No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.



It does seem fairly clear to me that the Universe is far older than some 6 to 10 thousand years old (The fact that Creationists can't even agree on THAT part, to me, is actually rather encouraging.)


Why does that seem clear to you?



And, Evolution is a scientifically observed phenomenon.


Where is evidence supporting you assertion?

Your attempts at denying that simple fact, and your failure to even show any actually verifiable science, after all the time you've been posting to this thread tells me that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.


Where is evidence supporting that simple fact? Most of my posts give scientific evidence (confirmed by the scientist quoted) that evolution is nothing more than evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

And, while I believe the science, I have yet to deny God's existence, even though I deny your weak presentations and failure to provide any evidence that he does.


There is no conflict between science and God. God created science. Ongoing discoveries about the astounding complexity of DNA continue to provide solid evidence for the divine creation of life. In fact, it was an objective look at DNA that led the late Sir Antony Flew, long the leading atheist in England, to renounce his atheism and accept the existence of a divine Creator. For more information, go here: https://www.ucg.org/beyond-today/beyond ... e-of-faith.

Also, before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.

Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.

Evidence for the Existence of God

Apologetics Press - Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists

AlwaysBeReady.com

The First Cause Argument

Arguments for God's Existence

Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Is There a God

God does not need your "evidence"


True, but you and I do.

FourPart;1499597 wrote: Evolution does NOT claim to have made anything out of nothing. The whole nature of Evolution is a process of CHANGING. In order to change something, that something must first exist.


But before that changing something existed, it did not exist, and the universe did not exist in the past and there was nothing from which it appeared, which is not possible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause was supernatural.

Lawrence M. Krauss, Ph.D. is one example of an evolutionist claiming everything came from nothing.

Another is Alan Guth who stated: "The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere."

The Bible presupposes that God began the universe. The fact of the universe’s beginning points strongly to a Creator consistent with the biblical God. Some atheists, following Hume, have asserted that something can begin without a cause, but this is not only unreasonable, it is arguably inconceivable. The ‘New Atheists’ have resorted to quantum bluffing to claim that something really can come from nothing. But they must equivocate about the word ‘nothing’. This really should mean nothing—no properties. However, their proposed quantum vacuum is not nothing; it must be something, with properties—e.g. the quantum vacuum, which is being bound by the laws of quantum physics, so that it can ‘fluctuate’.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. It stands to reason.

For more, go here: God created not quantum fluctuation - creation.com

When I challenged you to provide references, I didn't mean just more quotes from that self same book. I mean independent sources. For instance, Brown (aka you) are constantly making reference to claims that he is supported in reviews in New Scientist.


When have I constantly made reference to claims that he is supported in reviews in New Scientist?

Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post

Since science proves the existence of God, we can consider this:

FourPart;1499598 wrote: Since the entire argument is based on a false premise, the remainder of the argument is also invalid.

Science has NOT proved the existence of a God. If it had there wouldn't be any matter of contention. Nor does Science disprove the existence of a God.


Is this not based on the facts of science?: Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God. For details, go here:

Evidence for the Existence of God

Apologetics Press - Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists

AlwaysBeReady.com

The First Cause Argument

Arguments for God's Existence

Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Is There a God

Pahu;1499622 wrote: Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post

Since science proves the existence of God, we can consider this:



Is this not based on the facts of science?: Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.




Um, no. There is only a presumption on your part that there was a time that the Universe did not exist. Your logic is fallacious.

As we've said before, "Show me the science."

LarsMac;1499625 wrote: Um, no. There is only a presumption on your part that there was a time that the Universe did not exist. Your logic is fallacious.

As we've said before, "Show me the science."


That there was a time when the universe did not exist is more than an assumption. It is a logical fact. The only alternative is the universe is infinite, but the universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe has always existed or came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradict the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.

Pahu;1499627 wrote: That there was a time when the universe did not exist is more than an assumption. It is a logical fact. The only alternative is the universe is infinite, but the universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe has always existed or came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradict the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.


And there we are at that old impasse, again.

You have no science, so you through out some presumptive logic, with no foundation in science, whatsoever (well I am sure that you think that somehow misquoting the second law of Thermodynamics passes for "Science" ) and expect people to just accept it.

The thing about logic is that logic can only be used to reach a valid conclusion when the initial assertion is true and provable. You have no such assertion to start with, therefore your logic fails miserably.

LarsMac;1499629 wrote: And there we are at that old impasse, again.

You have no science, so you through out some presumptive logic, with no foundation in science, whatsoever (well I am sure that you think that somehow misquoting the second law of Thermodynamics passes for "Science" ) and expect people to just accept it.

The thing about logic is that logic can only be used to reach a valid conclusion when the initial assertion is true and provable. You have no such assertion to start with, therefore your logic fails miserably.


Okay, why don't you show us how the universe appeared from nothing by a natural cause.

Pahu;1499639 wrote: Okay, why don't you show us how the universe appeared from nothing by a natural cause.


Why do you presume the Universe appeared from Nothing?

Or, for that matter, why do you assume that there ever was nothing? You are using fallacious logic. You are taking the supposition of before there was something there was nothing. That is not a known fact. Nothing regarding th3e origin of the Universe is. There is an equal reason to believe that it has always existed than there is to believe that it hasn't. Either is pure supposition.I don't claim that either is the case because I simply don't know. Nobody does. For you to claim that you do know demonstrates an immense ego on your part, as it places yourself above all the physicists of the world throughout history - and your only text book - some heavily flawed hypothesis written by some unqualified layman. Your only research - pastings from said book. Cross references to quantify accuracy of said book - pastings taken from said book.

The Bible only cross references to certain historical events which are already known to exist & fills in the rest with unfounded fiction based on mythology.

I am an Evolutionist. I know that Evolution exists. I don't know for certain about the origin of the Universe. However, I do know that it has nothing to do with Evolution. If the Evolutionist to which you refer makes claims referring to the origin that is not BECAUSE he is an Evolutionist, it is AS WELL as him being an Evolutionist. It's like me saying that the most Universal language on the Earth is English. I also say that the Earth is round. That does not mean that the Earth is round because the most Universal language on Earth is English. The 2 are entirely unrelated.

LarsMac;1499640 wrote: Why do you presume the Universe appeared from Nothing?


Because the universe had a beginning, and before that beginning, there was nothing from which it appeared.

FourPart;1499643 wrote: Or, for that matter, why do you assume that there ever was nothing? You are using fallacious logic. You are taking the supposition of before there was something there was nothing. That is not a known fact. Nothing regarding th3e origin of the Universe is. There is an equal reason to believe that it has always existed than there is to believe that it hasn't. Either is pure supposition.


Science does not support an infinite universe. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe has always existed or came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradict the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.

I don't claim that either is the case because I simply don't know. Nobody does. For you to claim that you do know demonstrates an immense ego on your part, as it places yourself above all the physicists of the world throughout history - and your only text book - some heavily flawed hypothesis written by some unqualified layman. Your only research - pastings from said book. Cross references to quantify accuracy of said book - pastings taken from said book.


My logical conclusions are only based on the facts of science. Your unwillingness to accept those facts is based on your rejection of anything contradicting your erroneous preconceptions.

The Bible only cross references to certain historical events which are already known to exist & fills in the rest with unfounded fiction based on mythology.


How do you know. Here are the facts:

1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:



The Rocks Cry Out

In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net

Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net

http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record



2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:



Scientific Facts in The Bible

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible



3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

100prophecies.org

About Bible Prophecy

Bible Prophecies Fulfilled

Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

Bible Prophecy



No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.



I am an Evolutionist. I know that Evolution exists.


How do you know? Where is evidence your assertions?

After their experience of Jesus they began to add things to describe him. They then went to the Bible and made some spurious claims for his from the OT. They wrote the stories to make a point. Because the ancient documents and oral tradition they decided that Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem. It is scholarly belief that Jesus was most likely born in Nazareth. They added the origins of an individual as part of their understanding. Thus you get Jesus of Nazareth. That is not prophesy fulfilled that is creative writing.

What a bunch of nonsense to say the Bible is scientifically accurate. They though epilepsy was caused by demon possession but now we know it is cause by a problem in the brain. Snakes don't talk, stars do not and cannot follow or lead a couple of travelers. The destruction of all the small boys by Herod never happened. The trip into Egypt never happened. It is Midrash. People should hopefully get over it some day. Now about the sun standing still for a day LOL Sometimes the stars are used to get directions and because of the distance to them they sometimes look like they may be leading or following.

Science does not prove that the Universe had a beginning, nor does it prove it did not. That is what Science is. If something is unknown then Science accepts that it doesn't know. Creationism, however, makes up what it wants to believe, calls it a fact & calls it Science. It then tries to use Science to prove what it wants it to prove, but it also doesn't hesitate to disparage Science when it proves something that is contrary to what they want it to say. Cherry Picking, Creationism is they name. Repeated pasting of an unknown as being fact does not make it so. It is merely unfounded speculation. There is no evidence one way or the other.

FourPart. That is precisely what more fundamentalist archaeologists do. They try to make the evidence suit their belief.

Pahu;1499675 wrote: Because the universe had a beginning, and before that beginning, there was nothing from which it appeared.


As you are so fond of saying, "Evidence free speculation"

Ted;1499678 wrote: After their experience of Jesus they began to add things to describe him. They then went to the Bible and made some spurious claims for his from the OT. They wrote the stories to make a point. Because the ancient documents and oral tradition they decided that Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem. It is scholarly belief that Jesus was most likely born in Nazareth. They added the origins of an individual as part of their understanding. Thus you get Jesus of Nazareth. That is not prophesy fulfilled that is creative writing.


Wrong! The Bible was written by eyewitnesses during the time when enemies could refute their claims.

Ted;1499682 wrote: What a bunch of nonsense to say the Bible is scientifically accurate.


Did you check the links?

They though epilepsy was caused by demon possession but now we know it is cause by a problem in the brain.


Christ cured epilepsy by driving out demons which means they exist and are the cause.

Snakes don't talk...


True. The Garden of Eden story is as allegory.

...stars do not and cannot follow or lead a couple of travelers.


That star was probably an angel.

The destruction of all the small boys by Herod never happened.


Yes it did.

The trip into Egypt never happened.


Yes it did.

It is Midrash. People should hopefully get over it some day. Now about the sun standing still for a day LOL Sometimes the stars are used to get directions and because of the distance to them they sometimes look like they may be leading or following.


What is Midrash? The sun did stand still for a day. God made it happen.

FourPart;1499689 wrote: Science does not prove that the Universe had a beginning, nor does it prove it did not.


But if the universe had no beginning, then it has always existed, which is contrary to the facts of science. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe has always existed or came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradict the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.

That is what Science is. If something is unknown then Science accepts that it doesn't know. Creationism, however, makes up what it wants to believe, calls it a fact & calls it Science. It then tries to use Science to prove what it wants it to prove, but it also doesn't hesitate to disparage Science when it proves something that is contrary to what they want it to say. Cherry Picking, Creationism is they name. Repeated pasting of an unknown as being fact does not make it so. It is merely unfounded speculation. There is no evidence one way or the other.


Creation science is the systematic study of nature by scientists holding to the creationist worldview, which asserts that the cosmos and life on Earth are the result of a supernatural or intelligent causation. The term (also known as Scientific creationism) is most often used in connection with religious concepts of creation -- specifically, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic understanding of creation, based on the accounts of Genesis and the Qur'an. It is also frequently applied to describe the defense of creationism on scientific grounds.

Creation science is primarily concerned with two issues:

Understanding the discoveries of science within the interpretive framework of creationism;

Documenting and demonstrating how the findings of science are consistent with creationism and inconsistent with evolutionary theory;

Most creationist research focuses on issues related to the origin or history of the universe, Earth, and life. Each of these areas of scientific inquiry are analyzed by creation scientists who hold to various postulates regarding the extent to which natural processes were responsible. The most divisive topics are those that address chronology, as there are many who believe the cosmos to be billions of years old, while others hold it to be much younger than modern science asserts.

In contrast to religious creationism, intelligent design (ID) posits that certain aspects of the physical universe (particularly life) are designed, but makes no specific claims regarding the identity of the designer. Although typically considered a subset of creation science, ID is distinguished by the absence of presuppositions regarding a creation. ID has instead developed as a field of inquiry to study the empirical scientific evidence of design that has been discovered in nature.

Creation science is premised on several ideas:

Science is by definition a human effort to understand the universe.

There is nothing "unscientific" about believing that life was deliberately created. Just as it is scientific to study the Pyramids and Parthenon as having been created at a particular time by a particular creator, it is scientific to study life as having been designed at a particular time by a particular creator.

The historical book of Genesis provides a verifiable, falsifiable record of events which can be evidenced and understood scientifically. In particular, the Great Flood had an extraordinary effect on the Earth's geology which can be evidenced and studied.

Much of the creation vs. evolution conflict revolves around determining which ideas are "facts" and which are "interpretations" of fact. For the most part, the same actual facts, observations, and repeatable phenomena are common to scientists of all philosophies.

The divergence comes in the approach to them, and in the interpretation of them.

Creation scientists use the same scientific method, but simply operate under the presupposition that God designed and assembled our world when forming theories. The number of scientists populating the creation paradigm has risen sharply in recent decades, and hence the issues in scientific creationism have abounded.

Young earth creationism has three basic beliefs drawn from a literal interpretation of the Bible:

All living things were created by God

This creation was relatively recent

A Great Deluge occurred some time after the initial creation

Secular scientists find the first statement unscientific in the sense that it is based on observations that cannot be reproduced, and thus exclude it a priori. Creationists usually respond that this argument relies on an inadequate definition of science, because it excludes as unscientific a possibility that could still be historically true, and because it admits abiogenesis as scientific, even though it also cannot be reproduced. The second and third claims are vigilantly attacked on the basis of uniformitarianism, or the idea that the geology of the Earth is the result of slow processes, rather than the catastrophism of creation science.

Creation science is limited in scope, focusing on issues relevant to the origin of things. As such, it does not differ from mainstream science on many issues that are observable today, such as the function of gravity or the composition of the sun.

Principal subjects of research in scientific creationism are:

Astronomy

Cosmic chronology

Geochronology

Flood geology

Biological evolution

Baraminology (Creation taxonomy)

Cosmology

Biblical Archaeology

Biblical chronology

A few notes are in order regarding this topic due to its controversial nature.

It is patently impossible to adequately discuss creation science without referencing creationist journals. It is practically impossible for a scientists to publish a creationist paper in a secular journal, and it is claimed that journals have even pulled support for papers post-approval when it was discovered that one or both of the authors had creationist leanings. Therefore, be advised that, while many of the papers under discussion are peer-reviewed, they are peer-reviewed by scientists who are themselves generally creationists, possibly removing one bias for another.

When used here the term theory refers to a model which describes evidence, and hopefully, makes predictions. It is therefore not meant in the informal sense of conjecture, but neither is it meant to implied that has gained currency in the mainstream. hypothesis could easily be used instead.

This site describes the principal work of creationists, which typically revolve around showing difficulties with the superstructure of modern science. In general, creation sciences do not attempt to prove creation directly anymore than secular scientists attempt to prove uniformitarianism or abiogenesis. The research of creation scientists falls into two general areas:

Showing that their beliefs are not incompatible with known observations

Showing that modern day observables challenge some basic tenets of modern science (e.g. an old earth, evolution, abiogenesis)

Both of these basic areas of research are treated here, but it must be understood that creationists typically rely on a type of argument from silence. They suggest that if the universe is young, abiogenesis is untenable, or the modern-day diversity of life cannot be explained via evolution, then their general axioms are more reasonable than any other way of explaining our modern earth. This argument by silence is, of course, not air-tight, but neither is it the case that, for example, a young earth theory of evolution exists.

Creation science - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

"Creation Science" is an oxymoron, as it is not Scientific. It takes a premise & then grasps at straws to find something to back it up. If they happen to find something that COULD be interpreted in the way that they want it to, then it is classed as "Irrefutable Evidence", when it is nothing but just that - Interpretation. However, when there is REAL Scientific Evidence it is ignored or denied in the face of everything to the contrary.

REAL Science always questions itself & seeks to find further evidence in the pursuit of further knowledge. Creation 'Science' never questions itself. It has all the evidence it needs in a single story book.

Just what training do you have in Theology? I doubt if you have any whatsoever, as you seem to have only ever read one book - that of Dolt Brown. You've probably never even cross checked the sections of the Bible that he claims 'proves' his case. You just take it on Faith of the word of your God - Dolt Brown. Ted, on the other hand has a great deal of Theological background. Furthermore, before you start your usual arguments of discounting anyone who questions the literal meaning of the Bible as being Atheist, Ted is not an Atheist, and he knows what he's talking about as far as the Bible is concerned.

As usual, your many times pasted claims are totally fallacious. They make claims they cannot substantiate - such as that the Great Flood has had an effect that "can be evidenced and studied". Note that this refers to the future tense. In other words there is no evidence. When something is evidenced that means that 'evidence' is made. REAL evidence, on the other hand is not made, it exists before the event that leads to the theory. Not only is there no evidence to support the notion of a flood, but there is masses of evidence to the contrary.

So, you believe that Epilepsy is caused by Demons? Very Scientific, I must say. No doubt you are a qualified neurologist?

So now a star turns into an angel? More Creation Science?

I grant you that the Sun stood still for a day. It has stood still for millions of years. It's the earth that goes around the sun. Or does Creation Science dispute that as well, as is conflicts with the Biblical claim?

FourPart;1499721 wrote:

As usual, your many times pasted claims are totally fallacious. They make claims they cannot substantiate - such as that the Great Flood has had an effect that "can be evidenced and studied". Note that this refers to the future tense. In other words there is no evidence. When something is evidenced that means that 'evidence' is made. REAL evidence, on the other hand is not made, it exists before the event that leads to the theory. Not only is there no evidence to support the notion of a flood, but there is masses of evidence to the contrary.


New evidence shows that the earth has experienced a devastating, worldwide flood, whose waters violently burst forth from under earth’s crust. Standard “textbook explanations for many of earth’s major features are scientifically flawed. We can now explain, using well-understood phenomena, how this cataclysmic event rapidly formed so many features. These and other mysteries, listed below and briefly described in the next 11 pages, are best explained by an earthshaking event, far more catastrophic than almost anyone has imagined.

The Grand Canyon (pages 211–244)

Mid-Oceanic Ridge

Earth’s Major Components

Oceanic Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire (pages 155–190)

Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor

Submarine Canyons

Coal and Oil

Methane Hydrates

Ice Age

Major Mountain Ranges

Frozen Mammoths (pages 261–291)

Overthrusts

Volcanoes and Lava

Geothermal Heat

Strata and Layered Fossils (pages 195–209)

Limestone (pages 253–258)

Metamorphic Rock

Plateaus

The Moho and Black Smokers

Salt Domes

Jigsaw Fit of the Continents

Changing Axis Tilt

Comets (pages 295–329)

Asteroids, Meteoroids and TNOs (pages 331–371)

Earth’s Radioactivity (pages 373–425)



Each appears to be a consequence of a sudden, unrepeatable event—a global flood whose waters erupted from interconnected, worldwide subterranean chambers with an energy release exceeding the explosion of trillions of hydrogen bombs.1 The hydroplate theory, explained later in this chapter, will resolve all these mysteries.

But first, what is a hydroplate? Before the global flood, an ocean of water was under earth’s crust. Pressure increases in this subterranean water (which will soon be explained) ruptured that crust, breaking it into plates. The escaping water flooded the earth. Because hydro means water, those crustal plates will be called hydroplates. Where they broke, how they moved, and hundreds of other details and evidence—all consistent with the laws of physics—constitute the hydroplate theory and explain earth’s major features.

Plate tectonics, currently the most widely taught theory in the earth sciences, has many little-known problems. According to this theory, earth’s crust is composed of many plates,2 each 30–60 miles thick. They move relative to each other, about an inch per year—at the rate a fingernail grows. Continents and oceans ride on top of these plates. Some continents, such as North America, are on more than one plate. For example, different parts of North America, separated by the San Andreas Fault running up through western California, are sliding past each other. (A fault is a large fracture in the earth along which slippage has occurred.) Supposedly, material deep inside the earth is rising toward the crest of the entire Mid-Oceanic Ridge. From there, the material divides and moves horizontally in opposite directions away from the ridge. This claimed motion, called seafloor spreading, is similar to that of two conveyor belts rising together from under a floor and then moving along the floor in opposite directions. If plate tectonics happens on earth, why is it not seen on other planets?3 [See Does Recently Declassified Data Falsify Plate Tectonics? In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Does Recently Declassified Data Falsify Plate Tectonics? ]

Crisis in Earth Science. The most perplexing question in the earth sciences today is barely mentioned in classrooms and textbooks: What force moves plates over the globe?

The single most difficult question that faces the theory of plate tectonics today is the same question that led to the downfall of Wegener’s theory of continental drift almost three-quarters of a century ago. That is, what is the mechanism that drives the plate tectonic machine?5

The hydroplate theory gives a surprisingly simple answer that will be clear by the end of the next chapter. It involves gravity, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, earth’s core, and water—lots of it. Be patient, and read the next 65 pages carefully.



Figure 43: World Ocean Floor. Notice the characteristic margins of each continent. Seaward from each ocean beach is a shallow, gradually sloping continental shelf, then a relatively steep drop, called the continental slope. This strange pattern is worldwide. Why? For a better look at the typical shape of this margin, see Figure 46 on page 115. Also notice the different characteristics of (1) continents and ocean basins, and (2) the Atlantic and Pacific Basins. Ninety East Ridge is so named because it lies almost exactly along 90°E longitude. Its straight, 3,000-mile length, and curious north-south orientation aimed at the Himalayas are important clues to past events on earth. (Note: As one moves toward polar regions on this type of map projection, east-west distances are stretched and do not reflect true distances.)

Why does the Mid-Oceanic Ridge intersects itself in the Indian Ocean (shown by the black circle). Ask yourself how seafloor spreading could work there—moving away from that intersection point in four perpendicular directions. Answer: It can’t.As will be explained with many more examples in this and the next chapter, seafloor spreading is a myth. That alone falsifies plate tectonics. The hydroplate theory provides a simple explanation for that intersection point and the Mid-Oceanic Ridge.[see Does Recently Declassified Data Falsify Plate Tectonics? on page 504.]





Figure 44: “Unlevel Sea Level. An amazing technological development reveals details on ocean floors. In 1983, the U.S. Navy’s SEASAT satellite measured with a radar altimeter the satellite’s distance above the ocean surface with an accuracy of several inches! “Sea level is far from level. Instead, the ocean surface “humps up over mountains on the ocean floor and is depressed over trenches. The gravitational attraction of the Hawaiian Islands, for example, pulls the surrounding water toward it. This raises sea level there about 80 feet higher than it would be otherwise. The satellite’s data have been color coded to make this spectacular “picture of the ocean surface. Darker areas show depressions in sea level. Notice that the ocean surface is depressed over long scars, called fracture zones, running generally perpendicular to the Mid-Oceanic Ridge. Which theory explains this—the plate tectonic theory or the hydroplate theory? Also consider the nearly intersecting fracture zones in the South Pacific. Which theory explains them?

This technique for showing features on the ocean floor has steadily improved since 1983. Today, ridges and fracture zones can be seen in places that are inconsistent with the plate tectonic interpretation. For example a crooked fracture zone can be traced from South America to Africa, and oceanic ridges are found in the Gulf of Mexico. As you will see, both are consistent with the hydroplate theory.4

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview

And what is this 'New Evidence'? Everyone of the listed items is evidence to the contrary. These are observed geological facts to demonstrate the age of the earth to be in Millions of years. The Continental Drift is something that continues to be observed, measured & recorded. The Hydroplate hypothesis is nothing but unsubstantiated fantasy with no evidence to back it up, with as much validity in Science as H.G. Wells, with the Morlocks living beneath the surface of the Earth - or do you consider their existence as evidence of the Hydroplate hypothesis, that they are living in the caverns which were once filled with water?

Probably comes from Brown.

Ted;1499736 wrote: Probably comes from Brown.
It does.

FourPart;1499725 wrote: And what is this 'New Evidence'? Everyone of the listed items is evidence to the contrary. These are observed geological facts to demonstrate the age of the earth to be in Millions of years. The Continental Drift is something that continues to be observed, measured & recorded. The Hydroplate hypothesis is nothing but unsubstantiated fantasy with no evidence to back it up, with as much validity in Science as H.G. Wells, with the Morlocks living beneath the surface of the Earth - or do you consider their existence as evidence of the Hydroplate hypothesis, that they are living in the caverns which were once filled with water?


If you will follow the link and study the following several pages, your questions will be answered.

Pahu;1499755 wrote: If you will follow the link and study the following several pages, your questions will be answered.
The only links you ever provide are fallacious ones by Brown, and every single word of has has been pasted here time & time again. There's no point in following any of your links.

Without using Brown links, explain what the evidence is and provide INDEPENDENT sources to verify its validity (furthermore, 'independent' does not include Creationist websites). Do NOT use copying & pasting. Explain things in your OWN words. Try arguing the case for YOURSELF to prove that you even have the foggiest idea of what you're talking about. All your repetitive copying & pasting serves to do is to prove what a mindless idiot you are without any comprehension of the topic at hand.

How about reading this link, regarding Brown's Story Book. It does go into a great deal of detail about it:

Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model Doesn't Hold Water

The Law of Biogenesis




Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (a).

Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis (b). Others are aware of just how complex life is and the many failed and foolish attempts to explain how life came from non-life. They duck the question by claiming that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life.

a. And yet, leading evolutionists are forced to accept some form of spontaneous generation. For example, a former Harvard University professor and Nobel Prize winner in physiology and medicine acknowledged the dilemma.

“The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. George Wald, “The Origin of Life, Scientific American, Vol. 190, August 1954, p. 46.

Wald rejects creation, despite the impossible odds of spontaneous generation.

“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. Ibid.

Later, Wald appeals to huge amounts of time to accomplish what seemed to be the impossibility of spontaneous generation.

“Time is in fact the hero of the plot. ... Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles. Ibid., p. 48.

In 1954, when Wald wrote the above, the genetic code had not been discovered. No one could have appreciated just how complex life is. Today, after more discoveries of complexity, the impossibility of spontaneous generation is even more firmly established, regardless of the time available. [See pages 15-22] Unfortunately, generations of professors and textbooks with Wald’s perspective have so impacted our schools that it is difficult for evolutionists to change direction.

Evolutionists also do not recognize:

that with increasing time (their “miracle maker) comes increasing degradation of the fragile environment on which life depends, and

that creationists have much better explanations (such as the flood) for the scientific observations that evolutionists think show vast time periods.

Readers will later see this.

b. “The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry. J. W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (New York: The Viking Press, Inc., 1933), p. 94.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Pahu;1499805 wrote:

The Law of Biogenesis




Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (a).

Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis (b). Others are aware of just how complex life is and the many failed and foolish attempts to explain how life came from non-life. They duck the question by claiming that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life.

...




Seriously? Straw man is your attempt at science?

Spontaneous Generation was an ancient supposition made and disproved long ago. "Evolutionary Scientist" do NOT "Reluctantly accept" the Law of Biogenesis. It is a scientifically accepted fact (hence the term, "Law".)

There are, however, scientist exploring the possibility of the foundation of life originating from abiogenesis. I'm not aware that they have come up with any provable theories, yet.

So, tell me, Pahu.

Have you ever had any real success with any of these ludicrous postings of yours in any of the forum you spam with this stuff?

And, what, exactly would be your criteria for claiming success?

LarsMac;1499856 wrote: Seriously? Straw man is your attempt at science?

Spontaneous Generation was an ancient supposition made and disproved long ago. "Evolutionary Scientist" do NOT "Reluctantly accept" the Law of Biogenesis. It is a scientifically accepted fact (hence the term, "Law".)


Don't evolutionists claim life spontaneous generated in the beginning?

There are, however, scientist exploring the possibility of the foundation of life originating from abiogenesis. I'm not aware that they have come up with any provable theories, yet.


There you are. Darwin suggested life began spontaneously in a warm little pond. The effort seems to be to deny God created life.

So, tell me, Pahu.

Have you ever had any real success with any of these ludicrous postings of yours in any of the forum you spam with this stuff?

And, what, exactly would be your criteria for claiming success?


On what basis do you think my posts are ludicrous?

My criteria for success is to get my readers to think and respond. I have been successful.

You have been funny in a rather sad way. I take my understandings from bona fide experts who have had their work previewed by others in the same field no just one man eg. Brown. I look for the peer reviews. Some folks will invent many stories but they are not previewed by accepted experts in the fiels. In some cases we have to live with paradox due to a lack of a credible evidence. Re evolution there is much evidence even to transitional fossils.

Pahu;1499859 wrote: Don't evolutionists claim life spontaneous generated in the beginning?




Um, no. Most scientific folks who study the concept of where life originated are still thinking about it. Some tried a number of experiments in hopes of arriving at an explanation, but none have come up with anything conclusive.

Pahu;1499859 wrote:

There you are. Darwin suggested life began spontaneously in a warm little pond. The effort seems to be to deny God created life.




Pasteur Disproved Spontaneous Generation. Other scientists proved Biogenesis. So far nobody has come up with anything better.

Science works.

Pahu;1499859 wrote:

On what basis do you think my posts are ludicrous?


To start with, expecting "evolutionists" to rest on the words of someone who hasn't said anything for over a century.

Pahu;1499859 wrote:



My criteria for success is to get my readers to think and respond. I have been successful.


Well, then, I commend you on your success.

Ted;1499866 wrote: You have been funny in a rather sad way. I take my understandings from bona fide experts who have had their work previewed by others in the same field no just one man eg. Brown. I look for the peer reviews. Some folks will invent many stories but they are not previewed by accepted experts in the fiels. In some cases we have to live with paradox due to a lack of a credible evidence. Re evolution there is much evidence even to transitional fossils.


Where is that evidence?

Walt Brown's conclusions are confirmed by the following scientists he quotes:

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:

American journal of science

Astronomical journal

Astrophysics and space science

Astrophysical journal

Bioscience

Geology

Icarus

Journal of Geology

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Nature

New scientist

Physics Today

Physical review

Physical review d

Physical review letters

Science

Space science reviews

The American Journal of Science and Arts

Pahu;1499889 wrote: Where is that evidence?

Walt Brown's conclusions are confirmed by the following scientists he quotes:

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:

American journal of science

Astronomical journal

Astrophysics and space science

Astrophysical journal

Bioscience

Geology

Icarus

Journal of Geology

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Nature

New scientist

Physics Today

Physical review

Physical review d

Physical review letters

Science

Space science reviews

The American Journal of Science and Arts


You really need to stop posting this. It proves nothing. It is actually, for the most part a complete falsehood. It demonstrates your complete lack of moral character in constantly attempting to perpetrate a lie.

It does nothing, whatsoever, to forward your cause.

LarsMac;1499893 wrote: You really need to stop posting this. It proves nothing. It is actually, for the most part a complete falsehood. It demonstrates your complete lack of moral character in constantly attempting to perpetrate a lie.

It does nothing, whatsoever, to forward your cause.


You are claiming scientists are wrong when their findings disprove your erroneous preconceptions?

Pahu;1499896 wrote: You are claiming scientists are wrong when their findings disprove your erroneous preconceptions?


Nope.

Having actually checked up on at least half of the names in your list, and taken the time to go check the references in Brown's book for those people, I have found that they are ridiculous claims being made by Brown's book that the quotes in the references actually confirm Brown's claims.

We have even discussed a number of them. Well, I've discussed, and you dismissed my comments.

Most of the claims of support are from single sentences, that taken alone, completely out of context from the work in which they were found, could possibly be interpreted to support Brown, but within the context of the piece, have nothing whatsoever to do with Brown's rather creative, and basically evidence-free speculations.

LarsMac;1499897 wrote: Nope.

Having actually checked up on at least half of the names in your list, and taken the time to go check the references in Brown's book for those people, I have found that they are ridiculous claims being made by Brown's book that the quotes in the references actually confirm Brown's claims.

We have even discussed a number of them. Well, I've discussed, and you dismissed my comments.

Most of the claims of support are from single sentences, that taken alone, completely out of context from the work in which they were found, could possibly be interpreted to support Brown, but within the context of the piece, have nothing whatsoever to do with Brown's rather creative, and basically evidence-free speculations.


Where do the quotes change the meaning of the contexts?

Pahu;1499903 wrote: Where do the quotes change the meaning of the contexts?


Seriously? You are going to try to take that tack, again?

Are you really that obtuse, or did you fail High School English?

For your review:



con·text

ˈkäntekst/

noun

the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

"the decision was taken within the context of planned cuts in spending"

synonyms: circumstances, conditions, factors, state of affairs, situation, background, scene, setting More

the parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.

"word processing is affected by the context in which words appear"




So, in review, it is the paragraph in which you find a particular quote that establishes the the context. And the particular sentence only has meaning within that paragraph.

Outside of that context, one can make a sentence mean whatever they want, but that will not necessarily coincide with the meaning of the original author or speaker.

And the editorial staff that maintains Mr Brown's site is a collection of dishonest nitwits whose sole purpose seems to be to try and convince ignorant people that Mr Brown's material is widely accepted within the scientific community.

I would be embarrassed to be associated with such dishonesty and intentional fraud.

I have gone through this with his famed Who's Who list of pseudo random names pretty much picked out of a hat. I have gone through each one, one by one, and every one that there is anything to be found about them has been discredited in one way or another. The only place where there is any reference to their supposedly having mentioned Brown anywhere is in his storybook, and the few Creationist sites that simply do a Pahu & simply paste it. In this sense it means less than nothing. I have repeatedly challenged him to provide relative links in these publications where any one of the names have actually published anything in support of Brown in any of the journals, and he has repeatedly failed. Why? Because he hasn't the wherewithall or the inclination to do any of his own research. If it doesn't appear in Brown's storybook, it didn't happen. He hasn't even got the foggiest idea of what Evolution is. This is obvious as he constantly refers to it as being to do with Creation of life, when Evolution is nothing to do with Creation of anything - just changes to something that already exists. He takes great unknown factors concerning the origins of the Universe to be fact, because Brown says so, despite the entire Scientific World still not having been able to prove anything one way or the other. The entire Scientific world of top-notch Quantum Scientists, Bio-Technologists, Physicists, Geologists, Archeologists, etc. are all wrong, whereas one charlatan, with no qualifications (apart from in metalwork), and a self professed passing interest in some of the other fields somehow has all the answers as established 'facts'. The proof - a totally unrelated list of names, with no cross reference to any of them.

As for how quotes can be taken out of context - we've been down this path before. The famous quote by Prof. Hawking, supposedly supporting the existence of a God. All that was needed to do was to Google the partial quote in order to find the rest of it. Sure enough, the rest of it was stating how absurd the notion of the existence of a God was. Needless to say, the rest of this quote was conveniently omitted. When faced with this EVIDENCE of the quote being taken out of context, Pahu not only denies that the quote was taken out of context at all, but that everything else that Hawking says, regarding Quantum Physics is "Evidence Free Speculation". It may also be worthy of note that it was Hawking himself who came up with the idea of Quantum Mechanics - a science that is now considered an absolute & unquestionable fact. Something that has progressed space research immeasurably - something that NASA theorists couldn't have moved on without. All of which, according to Pahu, is "Evidence Free Speculation" - and this has to be a fact. Why? Because Pahu says so.

I have actually found a few forums where Pahu has been banned for flooding. Rather appropriate, considering that much of the rubbish he floods is supposedly about the Flood.

Just a few forums from which Pahu has been banned.....

Science Disproves Evolution

Is sexual reproduction unevolvable? - Page 10 - Secular Café

Science Disproves Evolution - Pahu's Pile of Preachy PooPoo - Page 22 - Raving Atheists Forum

(This one was just a Suspension, but he doesn't appear to have been back)

Science Disproves Evolution - Page 30 - International Skeptics Forum

The Atheist Experience™: Ustream chat room moderation

(And many more)

FourPart;1499910 wrote: Just a few forums from which Pahu has been banned.....

Science Disproves Evolution

Is sexual reproduction unevolvable? - Page 10 - Secular Café

Science Disproves Evolution - Pahu's Pile of Preachy PooPoo - Page 22 - Raving Atheists Forum

(This one was just a Suspension, but he doesn't appear to have been back)

Science Disproves Evolution - Page 30 - International Skeptics Forum

The Atheist Experience™: Ustream chat room moderation

(And many more)


What has gone on in other forums is of no concern to the admin or mods of this forum.

As long as Pahu abides by the rules, here, he can post his stuff 'til the cows come home.

Doesn't mean anyone will take it seriously.

LarsMac;1499904 wrote: Seriously? You are going to try to take that tack, again?

Are you really that obtuse, or did you fail High School English?

For your review:



So, in review, it is the paragraph in which you find a particular quote that establishes the the context. And the particular sentence only has meaning within that paragraph.

Outside of that context, one can make a sentence mean whatever they want, but that will not necessarily coincide with the meaning of the original author or speaker.

And the editorial staff that maintains Mr Brown's site is a collection of dishonest nitwits whose sole purpose seems to be to try and convince ignorant people that Mr Brown's material is widely accepted within the scientific community.

I would be embarrassed to be associated with such dishonesty and intentional fraud.


Where do the quotes change the meaning of the contexts?

FourPart;1499908 wrote: I have gone through this with his famed Who's Who list of pseudo random names pretty much picked out of a hat. I have gone through each one, one by one, and every one that there is anything to be found about them has been discredited in one way or another. The only place where there is any reference to their supposedly having mentioned Brown anywhere is in his storybook, and the few Creationist sites that simply do a Pahu & simply paste it. In this sense it means less than nothing. I have repeatedly challenged him to provide relative links in these publications where any one of the names have actually published anything in support of Brown in any of the journals, and he has repeatedly failed.


I thought I had provided that information. Here it is: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Index Letter A. That takes you to the index. Then, simply find the name of the scientist on the list and you will see his confirmation of Brown's conclusions.

He hasn't even got the foggiest idea of what Evolution is.


Sure I do: Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

As for how quotes can be taken out of context - we've been down this path before. The famous quote by Prof. Hawking, supposedly supporting the existence of a God. All that was needed to do was to Google the partial quote in order to find the rest of it. Sure enough, the rest of it was stating how absurd the notion of the existence of a God was. Needless to say, the rest of this quote was conveniently omitted. When faced with this EVIDENCE of the quote being taken out of context, Pahu not only denies that the quote was taken out of context at all, but that everything else that Hawking says, regarding Quantum Physics is "Evidence Free Speculation".


I never denied the quote was not taken out of context. The fact remains that Hawking's first part of the context, “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator, is accurate and does confirm Brown's conclusion; "Heat always flows from a hot body to a cold body. If the universe were infinitely old—has always been here—everything would have the same temperature. Because temperatures vary, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning. (A beginning suggests a Creator.)"

The rest of Hawking's statement is evidence free speculation.

It may also be worthy of note that it was Hawking himself who came up with the idea of Quantum Mechanics - a science that is now considered an absolute & unquestionable fact. Something that has progressed space research immeasurably - something that NASA theorists couldn't have moved on without. All of which, according to Pahu, is "Evidence Free Speculation" - and this has to be a fact. Why? Because Pahu says so.


Here are the facts about quantum mechanics:



QUANTUM




Can the universe come into existence from nothing?



Paul Davies writes: "...the application of quantum mechanics is normally restricted to atoms, molecules, and subatomic particles. Quantum effects are usually negligible for macroscopic objects. Recall that at the heart of quantum physics lies Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which states that all measurable quantities (e.g., position, momentum, energy) are subject to unpredictable fluctuations in their values. This unpredictability implies that the microworld is indeterministic: to use Einstein's picturesque phraseology, God plays dice with the universe. Therefore, quantum events are not determined absolutely by preceding causes. Although the probability of a given event (e.g., the radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus) is fixed by the theory, the actual outcome of a particular quantum process is unknown and, even in principle, unknowable.

“By weakening the link between cause and effect, quantum mechanics provides a subtle way for us to circumvent the origin-of-the-universe problem. If a way can be found to permit the universe to come into existence from nothing (emphasis mine) as the result of a quantum fluctuation, then no laws of physics would be violated. In other words, viewed through the eyes of a quantum physicist, the spontaneous appearance of a universe is not such a surprise, because physical objects are spontaneously appearing all the time--without well-defined causes--in the quantum microworld. The quantum physicist need no more appeal to a supernatural act to bring the universe into being than to explain why a radioactive nucleus decayed when it did." (Paul Davies, The Mind of God. N.Y.: Touchstone books, 1992)

The microworld is indeterministic, but in no way does it follow that quantum events are not determined absolutely by preceding causes. The link between cause and effect is in no way weakened and cannot be so weakened by science, at least without destroying the very possibility of science. And so there is no subtle way at all to circumvent the origin of the universe problem.

First, the nature of cause and effect is a metaphysical question, that is, a question for the philosophy of being. Science cannot question the principle of causality without threatening its very foundation. Nor can empiriological science begin to tell us what it means for one thing to cause another, that is, for something to cause or bring about an effect. As Hume demonstrated very clearly, from a strictly empirical point of view, cause and effect have no objective basis whatsoever. The cause and effect relationship is not perceived. It follows that either it is not real in the extramental sense, or there is a knowledge that is over and above sensation.

We would argue that there is a knowledge that is over and above sensation, namely intellection. Cause and effect is known, not perceived. All knowledge begins with the senses, but it does not end there; knowledge ends in intellection. This is so because knowledge begins and ends with real being.

To cause an effect is to impart being. And it is existential judgment that apprehends being. Now, from nothing comes nothing. For it is not possible to get being from non-being (nothing). And nothing is not a "potency", for "nothing" does not have "ability", and "ability" is a potentiality (an indeterminacy). Potentiality or ability is not nothing. It is intelligible—not in itself, but intelligible nonetheless. So it is not true that from nothing comes something. Nothing is nothing pure and simple. The universe, or anything for that matter, cannot have been the effect of nothing or non-being, for nothing simply "is not", and to effect is to impart being. But nothing has no being to impart, nor is it anything from which "is" may emerge.

Now, if there is nothing, then there is no fluctuation, quantum or otherwise. As Parmenides knew long ago, non-being or nothing is unthinkable. It cannot be made an object of thought. So if we refer to quantum fluctuation, we refer to something, not nothing. Furthermore, if quantum fluctuation is going to have any intelligible value whatsoever, there will have to be a subject of that fluctuation. What is it that is fluctuating?

Moreover, act proceeds from potency. But nothing reduces itself from potentiality to actuality except by something already in act. The act of all acts is the act of existing. But nothing can bring itself into being from non-being. In order to "bring itself into" anything, it would have to first exist or be. Activity (second act) presupposes a first act, that is, an existing being capable of acting. And not only is it not possible for potentiality to reduce itself to actuality absolutely, but also relatively. An already existing thing that is in potentiality to a certain mode of being cannot reduce itself to that actual mode of being. A thing cannot give to itself what it does not have, that is, what it is in potency to receive. If it could, it would have it actually and not potentially. But a cause imparts being or a mode of being to that which is in potentiality to receive that particular mode of being. For instance, what is potentially moving is made to be actually moving by something already in the act of moving. To deny this is as absurd as denying that nothing can bring itself into being. To reiterate, what is in potentiality towards a particular mode of being cannot impart to itself what it does not have, namely that particular mode of being, such as motion, a particular quantity, an accidental quality, etc. If it could impart a mode of being to itself that it does not have, then it is not true that it does not have it. And if it is not true that it does not have it, then it is not true that it is in potentiality towards it.

Physical objects may very well be spontaneously appearing all the time, but not knowing the cause is hardly the same thing as not having a cause. This is Cartesianism at its worst. For this would amount to an absolute identification of logical being with real being. But the fact is that physicists seek to know the cause of spontaneously appearing objects because they, as human beings who have pre-scientific knowledge, know that nothing cannot impart being; for nothing has no potentiality whatsoever, because potentiality is a mode of being. Facts are not good enough for scientists. They want reasoned facts. What is the reason for this fact? Not knowing the cause of something is no basis at all for concluding that there isn't one.

Moreover, scientific knowledge is precisely demonstrative knowledge. A conclusion is demonstrated, for instance, that there is no ether, or that we cannot know the position and velocity of an electron at the same time, or that space is curved, etc. But a demonstrated conclusion is an effect of a cause, namely the middle term of a syllogism. That is why a weakening of cause and effect can only weaken science, which depends upon an ability to draw conclusions. For instance, take William Harvey's (d. 1657) demonstration of the circulation of the blood:

A fluid of limited quantity kept in perpetual motion in one direction is moved circularly

The blood is such a fluid

Therefore, the blood is moved circularly.

The middle term in the above syllogism is A fluid of limited quantity kept in perpetual motion in one direction. So, we ask: What is the reason for concluding that the blood is moved circularly? The reason or cause (or the cause being/because) is the middle term. In other words, the answer is because any fluid of limited quantity kept in perpetual motion in one direction is moved circularly.

So, any weakening of cause and effect can only end in a weakening of the scientific process. Science is precisely a "knowing", and to know is to know reasoned facts or causes. To reason to a conclusion requires a knowledge of causes. For science is a search for causes, and conclusions of arguments proceed from causes (middle terms).

Davies argues that the quantum physicist need not appeal to a supernatural act to bring the universe into being. But it is this word "supernatural" that is a problem here. In a sense this is true, one need not appeal to a supernatural act. But it does not follow that one need not appeal to God, who is Ipsum Esse. For God is intimately involved in every natural process, because to cause an effect is to impart being, and God is the First Cause of all that is, because God's essence is to be. Beings do indeed cause effects, but not without the primal causality of that Being whose nature is to be. For nothing reduces itself from potentiality to actuality except by something already in act. We, as actually existing beings, can impart being upon that which is in potentiality to receive the particular mode of being in question, but none of us can bring something into being from nothing. A habens esse cannot surpass the very limits of its nature, and a thing acts according to its nature. But being (esse) is accidental, so to speak, that is, existence is outside of essence (with respect to those beings whose essence is not to be, but to be some kind of thing). There is a real distinction between essence and existence. So as a moving being I can impart motion upon another thing that is potentially moving, but in order to do that I must first be (for me to be actually moving requires that I first be), and so too the potentially moving thing that is in a state of potentiality. Throughout the motion by which I impart moving existence upon a thing, it is Ipsum Esse who must continue to preserve me and the moving thing being moved by me into existence, otherwise I cannot impart motion to the potentially moving thing. And so as a cause of an effect, I am never more than a secondary cause.

Moreover, change involves two terminals: the terminal from which (terminus a quo) a change commences, and a terminal towards which (terminus ad quem) the change moves and at which it terminates.

But nothing cannot be a terminus, because it is nothing. That is why creation (the bringing of something into being, by God, from nothing) is not change. The notion of creation from nothing, without God (Ipsum Esse) of course, leaves us with nothing. So, we have the spontaneous appearance of the universe from nothing, according to Davies. It cannot be a change, since nothing is not a terminus. And there is no cause to this spontaneous appearance. So there is a potentiality that is actualized, but it is not "somehow" actualized because there is no cause. We cannot ask "how" or "why". To ask "why" is to seek the cause, and there is no cause. But quantum fluctuation is put forth as an agent cause. This is inconsistent. So what then, is the existential status of this quantum fluctuation? What is it? If it is nothing, it cannot be the cause. If it is something, then the universe did not proceed from nothing. Fluctuation is also a term whose meaning, like the meanings of all our words, is derived from our pre-scientific experience. Something fluctuates. The word itself means "change". Fluctuation implies a substrate and a terminus a quo. Something is changing, and the terminus ad quem of that change is the end of the change. Now, is there a cause of this quantum fluctuation? If not, then we posit a change that is not caused, that is, a fulfillment or a realization (actualization) of a potentiality without a prior act. But this too would mean getting something from nothing. There is no cause of the fluctuation, and so we cannot seek to know why there was a fluctuation. Now, if nothing precedes the fluctuation (which is to say that the fluctuation has no substrate), then the fluctuation has nothing for its terminus a quo (for it has no substrate). But nothing cannot be the terminus a quo, because nothing means non-being. It is absurd to posit nothing as being a term "from which".

Finally, one can apply this type of irrationality to anything, that is, to any situation. What is to prevent a person, suspected of robbing a bank, from simply claiming that the money found in his apartment just spontaneously appeared? What grounds does anyone have for maintaining that such a notion is irrational on one level but not on another? In short, the notion of something coming from nothing is irrational and arbitrary.

http://fmmh.ycdsb.ca/teachers/F00027452 ... othing.htm

I have actually found a few forums where Pahu has been banned for flooding. Rather appropriate, considering that much of the rubbish he floods is supposedly about the Flood.


Which is a proven fact. The reason I was banned is they could not tolerate facts.