-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What Have Creationists Said That's True?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Whatever they parrot from people that's correct and uncorrupted by creationism.
Hela cells/lab pandemic
Panentheist sans dogma
I Guess Your Assuming here, that MATERIALISTS have some sort of handle on Absolute Truth Eh ? It is Too Laugh 
Materialist scientists assert that the entire cosmos has been expanding since the Big Bang and before this , there was NOTHING ( no time, no space, no matter, no mind etc ) . They also assert that the physical cosmos is all that exists. So IF materiality is all that there is ? and IF all of this, is in a constant state of flux ? How can a materialist science ever claim to know the ABSOLUTE TRUTH about anything ???
Sorry, that wasn’t quite your original question was it ?
OK You asked : ‘ What have Creationists said that is true ?’
Well, I’d like to hear YOUR definition of Creationist + truth.
BUT For the record, I WOULD label myself a ‘ Creationist’. However, by this, I only mean :
I do NOT believe - based on the best available scientific evidence/ rational analysis - that our cosmos was an accident ( Ergo , it appears to be the product of a purposeful and creative Intelligence/ Beneficence of an immeasurably high order & one which must transcend all space and time, in order to have authored the Big Bang/ An Anthropic Universe etcetera )
I don’t believe that the appearance of sentient life could have been an accident either. Mathematically speaking, even the probability for the spontaneous/blind arranging of all the ‘ left handed’ amino acids necessary for a single functioning protein, appears vanishingly small. How then could we go on to ‘ spontaneously’ arrive at RNA/ DNA ( much less living cells ) ?
DNA/RNA is nothing less than an ‘ informational code or symbolic language.’ Name me a comparably complex code, or any code at all, which was not the brainchild of an Intelligent Mind or Minds ?
Darwinism, DNA & ‘ Informational Entropy ’
Believing in Darwinism, by random mutation , even if honed by Natural Selection, could be likened to believing that a simple Morse Code signal, from the early 1900's, could randomly evolve into a modern Tv program. If this magically happened, Natural selection could take over, since most people today prefer watching TV to deciphering Morse Code. But without being underpinned by some sort of Intelligent Agent/ Creator this scenario would be strictly impossible. All the potential audience would ever get would be meaningless electromagnetic snow/ static.
Information always ALWAYS degrades over time, if subject to the forces of chaos. It never NEVER randomly increases in complexity/ informational carrying capacity , unless acted upon by an Intelligent Agent. DNA is no different. It too, is an informational code. Ergo, the same rules apply. To Reiterate : DNA MIGHT AS WELL BE A MESSAGE FROM ON HIGH, SENT BY DIVINITY !
Believing in Darwinism, rather than a purposeful Creation/ Creator, requires that I subscribe to what amounts to Make Believe/ Myth. I refuse to do that. Just as I conscientiously refuse to subscribe to that fear based / ‘ hell fire’ claptrap spouted by religious zealots promulgating ultra-literalist interpretations of wholly manmade religious scriptures ( The Bible , for example , is full of both contradictions as well as historical errors, and even contains logical impossibilities. Which is not to say that it doesn't contain any mystical insights. It believe it does - as do many venerated scriptures from all manner of religious traditions IMO - but the point is that no mere book authored by Man, could ever contain, the literal and inerrant word of God , again IMO )
To Darwinists/ Materialists/ Reductionist scientists I’m a heretic
To the followers of Mainstream Churches/ Mosques/ Synagogues etc...I’m a heretic too
Both Groups think they’ve got an ultra-accurate handle on : who /what God IS , or alternatively IS NOT.
( i ) One believes that the ‘ Creator’ is a myth ( without a shred of substantiation )
( ii ) The other believes in a godly Creator, but only in a peculiar flavor of Deity ( one which is almost always decidedly anthropomorphic and masculine in character ) as bests supports their equally dogmatic interpretations of reality ( again without a shred of substantiation )
My guess is that somewhere between the fundamentalist extremes of scientific atheism and religious orthodoxy there lies ‘ TRANSCENDENTAL TRUTH’
The Lines Of Longitude
No less a thinker than Albert Einstein declared, ‘ religion without science blind and science without religion lame.’ Sir Francis Bacon ( 1561- 1626 ) similarly insisted that : " a little science estranges a man from god, a lot of science brings him back."
I don’t know who said this originally, but I also love this analogy :
CHEERS ET AL
Materialist scientists assert that the entire cosmos has been expanding since the Big Bang and before this , there was NOTHING ( no time, no space, no matter, no mind etc ) . They also assert that the physical cosmos is all that exists. So IF materiality is all that there is ? and IF all of this, is in a constant state of flux ? How can a materialist science ever claim to know the ABSOLUTE TRUTH about anything ???
Sorry, that wasn’t quite your original question was it ?
OK You asked : ‘ What have Creationists said that is true ?’
Well, I’d like to hear YOUR definition of Creationist + truth.
BUT For the record, I WOULD label myself a ‘ Creationist’. However, by this, I only mean :
I do NOT believe - based on the best available scientific evidence/ rational analysis - that our cosmos was an accident ( Ergo , it appears to be the product of a purposeful and creative Intelligence/ Beneficence of an immeasurably high order & one which must transcend all space and time, in order to have authored the Big Bang/ An Anthropic Universe etcetera )
I don’t believe that the appearance of sentient life could have been an accident either. Mathematically speaking, even the probability for the spontaneous/blind arranging of all the ‘ left handed’ amino acids necessary for a single functioning protein, appears vanishingly small. How then could we go on to ‘ spontaneously’ arrive at RNA/ DNA ( much less living cells ) ?
DNA/RNA is nothing less than an ‘ informational code or symbolic language.’ Name me a comparably complex code, or any code at all, which was not the brainchild of an Intelligent Mind or Minds ?
Darwinism, DNA & ‘ Informational Entropy ’
Believing in Darwinism, by random mutation , even if honed by Natural Selection, could be likened to believing that a simple Morse Code signal, from the early 1900's, could randomly evolve into a modern Tv program. If this magically happened, Natural selection could take over, since most people today prefer watching TV to deciphering Morse Code. But without being underpinned by some sort of Intelligent Agent/ Creator this scenario would be strictly impossible. All the potential audience would ever get would be meaningless electromagnetic snow/ static.
Information always ALWAYS degrades over time, if subject to the forces of chaos. It never NEVER randomly increases in complexity/ informational carrying capacity , unless acted upon by an Intelligent Agent. DNA is no different. It too, is an informational code. Ergo, the same rules apply. To Reiterate : DNA MIGHT AS WELL BE A MESSAGE FROM ON HIGH, SENT BY DIVINITY !
Believing in Darwinism, rather than a purposeful Creation/ Creator, requires that I subscribe to what amounts to Make Believe/ Myth. I refuse to do that. Just as I conscientiously refuse to subscribe to that fear based / ‘ hell fire’ claptrap spouted by religious zealots promulgating ultra-literalist interpretations of wholly manmade religious scriptures ( The Bible , for example , is full of both contradictions as well as historical errors, and even contains logical impossibilities. Which is not to say that it doesn't contain any mystical insights. It believe it does - as do many venerated scriptures from all manner of religious traditions IMO - but the point is that no mere book authored by Man, could ever contain, the literal and inerrant word of God , again IMO )
To Darwinists/ Materialists/ Reductionist scientists I’m a heretic
To the followers of Mainstream Churches/ Mosques/ Synagogues etc...I’m a heretic too
Both Groups think they’ve got an ultra-accurate handle on : who /what God IS , or alternatively IS NOT.
( i ) One believes that the ‘ Creator’ is a myth ( without a shred of substantiation )
( ii ) The other believes in a godly Creator, but only in a peculiar flavor of Deity ( one which is almost always decidedly anthropomorphic and masculine in character ) as bests supports their equally dogmatic interpretations of reality ( again without a shred of substantiation )
My guess is that somewhere between the fundamentalist extremes of scientific atheism and religious orthodoxy there lies ‘ TRANSCENDENTAL TRUTH’
The Lines Of Longitude
No less a thinker than Albert Einstein declared, ‘ religion without science blind and science without religion lame.’ Sir Francis Bacon ( 1561- 1626 ) similarly insisted that : " a little science estranges a man from god, a lot of science brings him back."
I don’t know who said this originally, but I also love this analogy :
CHEERS ET AL
I Guess Your Assuming here, that MATERIALISTS have some sort of handle on Absolute Truth Eh ? It is Too Laugh
Materialist scientists assert that the entire cosmos has been expanding since the Big Bang and before this , there was NOTHING ( no time, no space, no matter, no mind etc ) . They also assert that the physical cosmos is all that exists. So IF materiality is all that there is ? and IF all of this, is in a constant state of flux ? How can a materialist science ever claim to know the ABSOLUTE TRUTH about anything ???
Sorry, that wasnt quite your original question was it ?
OK You asked : What have Creationists said that is true ?
Well, Id like to hear YOUR definition of Creationist + truth.
BUT For the record, I WOULD label myself a Creationist. However, by this, I only mean :
I do NOT believe - based on the best available scientific evidence/ rational analysis - that our cosmos was an accident ( Ergo , it appears to be the product of a purposeful and creative Intelligence/ Beneficence of an immeasurably high order & one which must transcend all space and time, in order to have authored the Big Bang/ An Anthropic Universe etcetera )
I dont believe that the appearance of sentient life could have been an accident either. Mathematically speaking, even the probability for the spontaneous/blind arranging of all the left handed amino acids necessary for a single functioning protein, appears vanishingly small. How then could we go on to spontaneously arrive at RNA/ DNA ( much less living cells ) ?
DNA/RNA is nothing less than an informational code or symbolic language. Name me a comparably complex code, or any code at all, which was not the brainchild of an Intelligent Mind or Minds ?
Darwinism, DNA & Informational Entropy
Believing in Darwinism, by random mutation , even if honed by Natural Selection, could be likened to believing that a simple Morse Code signal, from the early 1900's, could randomly evolve into a modern Tv program. If this magically happened, Natural selection could take over, since most people today prefer watching TV to deciphering Morse Code. But without being underpinned by some sort of Intelligent Agent/ Creator this scenario would be strictly impossible. All the potential audience would ever get would be meaningless electromagnetic snow/ static.
Information always ALWAYS degrades over time, if subject to the forces of chaos. It never NEVER randomly increases in complexity/ informational carrying capacity , unless acted upon by an Intelligent Agent. DNA is no different. It too, is an informational code. Ergo, the same rules apply. To Reiterate : DNA MIGHT AS WELL BE A MESSAGE FROM ON HIGH, SENT BY DIVINITY !
Believing in Darwinism, rather than a purposeful Creation/ Creator, requires that I subscribe to what amounts to Make Believe/ Myth. I refuse to do that. Just as I conscientiously refuse to subscribe to that fear based / hell fire claptrap spouted by religious zealots promulgating ultra-literalist interpretations of wholly manmade religious scriptures ( The Bible , for example , is full of both contradictions as well as historical errors, and even contains logical impossibilities. Which is not to say that it doesn't contain any mystical insights. It believe it does - as do many venerated scriptures from all manner of religious traditions IMO - but the point is that no mere book authored by Man, could ever contain, the literal and inerrant word of God , again IMO )
To Darwinists/ Materialists/ Reductionist scientists Im a heretic
To the followers of Mainstream Churches/ Mosques/ Synagogues etc...Im a heretic too
Both Groups think theyve got an ultra-accurate handle on : who /what God IS , or alternatively IS NOT.
( i ) One believes that the Creator is a myth ( without a shred of substantiation )
( ii ) The other believes in a godly Creator, but only in a peculiar flavor of Deity ( one which is almost always decidedly anthropomorphic and masculine in character ) as bests supports their equally dogmatic interpretations of reality ( again without a shred of substantiation )
My guess is that somewhere between the fundamentalist extremes of scientific atheism and religious orthodoxy there lies TRANSCENDENTAL TRUTH
The Lines Of Longitude
No less a thinker than Albert Einstein declared, religion without science blind and science without religion lame. Sir Francis Bacon ( 1561- 1626 ) similarly insisted that : " a little science estranges a man from god, a lot of science brings him back."
I dont know who said this originally, but I also love this analogy :
CHEERS ET AL
So, ummm, what have Creationists said that's true?
Yikes!!!
Hela cells/lab pandemic
Panentheist sans dogma
I'm a self professed ' Creationist' ...to be a Creationist by my definition is to believe that :' Our Anthropic Cosmos could NOT be an accident.'
Can u prove that my statement is UNTRUE ??? Can u even provide evidence to the contrary ?
Can u prove that my statement is UNTRUE ??? Can u even provide evidence to the contrary ?
Hela cells/lab pandemic
Panentheist sans dogma
BTW what has a Materialist Science Proven to Be true ?
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
"Prove" it to whom?
Let's assume I cannot prove your statement untrue. Do you honestly believe that proves your statement true?
McBell
Unbound
Actually, since YOU made the assertion, it is on YOU to presnt evidence to support your assertion.
So, can you prove your statement is TRUE ???
Hela cells/lab pandemic
Panentheist sans dogma
Desperate to defend ur sinking materialist paradigm , by casting aspersions are we ? How ignoble/ cowardly for a supposed lover of objective science/ seeker of truth...
BTW whats a frubal ?
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
It's "God's" special way of saying "I approve of you."
Hela cells/lab pandemic
Panentheist sans dogma
I can make a strong case vis a vis the truth of my statements...based on rational arguments/ the preponderance of evidence....which is all any of us can ever do
McBell
Unbound
What are you talking about?
I was asking Sunstone a question that is technically off topic.
However, if you want to go jumping to conclusions based on faulty and false assumptions, go right ahead.
My opinion of you cannot be sunk much lower.
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
I would settle with ' having a basis in reality'. Not sure what Sunstone would go for though....
I will be quite blunt. Show the calculation. This is a continous claim, but never has an actual calculation been shown. I am interested, so go ahead. It should be easy.
The rest of your post can wait.
Show me a single calculation.
McBell
Unbound
How about instead of making yet another claim, you just verify your second claim by presenting the evidence that proves your first claim?