Creation scientist resources (page 3)

lovelylil

HS,

I see you are a pessimist. I for one refuse to reduce my life's worth down to being just a time to feed off others for my own advantage. Lilly

onacruse

NWT:

Creation Science - The term the word oxymoron was invented for.

I must, I must, correct your grammar:

Creation Science - The term for which the word oxymoron was invented.

Didn't you momma ever tell you not to end a sentence with a preposition?

(Oops, I think I just ended my sentence with "a preposition.")

onacruse

Lilly:

I for one refuse to reduce my life's worth down to being just a time to feed off others for my own advantage. Lilly

Really?

What are you eating for dinner tonight?

Craig (and wishing your hubby a heartfelt farewell).

hillary_step

Lil,

I see you are a pessimist. I for one refuse to reduce my life's worth down to being just a time to feed off others for my own advantage.

Well, I have never read pessimism as being quite defined like that before. I mention a reality, and you suggest that it is a state of mind.

If you believe that you see and feel God in nature as you suggested, then you must also believe this is how he 'designed' it, or created it.

How else is one to view this? Perhaps fellow believers like Hooberus might help me out here.

Best regards - HS

AlmostAtheist

From http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Canopy.pdf (On the possibility of a water canopy surrounding the earth prior to the Flood)

This paper will demonstrate that a thicker vapor canopy containing significantly greater quantities of water vapor can exist under conditions of a smaller solar constant. For values less than about 25% of today’s solar constant most of the atmosphere would freeze and fall to the ground as snow. If large quantities of water vapor and/or carbon dioxide were also present under such conditions the temperature would remain warm enough to prevent the oxygen and water vapor from freezing out. This would require a much thicker canopy with a higher surface pressure and create different light conditions.

Of course, the question then arises, why would the solar constant have been lower prior to the Flood? There are at least four possible sets of conditions which would lead to a lower solar constant:
1) the sun’s output was less,
2) the distance from the sun to earth was greater,
3) some of the radiation from the sun was captured en route, or
4) a greater percentage of the solar radiation was reflected from the top of the atmosphere.
Possible scenarios will be suggested which could have caused these conditions. The consequences of such an environment will also be discussed.

I guess I never considered the "maybe the sun wasn't as hot prior to the flood, so the water canopy was needed, but about the time of the flood, it suddenly got hotter" theory. *roll eyes*

Dave

onacruse

hs:

Perhaps fellow believers like Hooberus might help me out here.

This has potential.

Apostate Kate

What I have found on this issue is people will accept as science what they chose to, period. I am a skeptic and only believe what has been proven and can be repeated. Example;

This is the scientific community who believe life on earth must have come from space; "Yet the phenomenon has not been unequivocally demonstrated in either medium. Until it is, one can reasonably doubt that evolutionary progress in a closed system is possible, in real or artificial life."...Is Evolutionary Progress in a Closed System Possible? by Brig Klyce

There is disagreement in the scientific community on entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics so evolutionists will claim one theory about a closed system and creationsist will claim another.

Probability is another issue; "THE EVOLUTIONIST, therefore, cannot avoid the question of probability by saying that anything can happen in an open system, he is finally forced to argue that it only seems extremely improbable, but really isn't, that atoms would rearrange themselves into spaceships and computers and TV sets." Granville Sewell Professor of Mathematics at the University of Texas El Paso, and visiting professor at Texas A&M UniversityDiscovery Institute - Article Database - Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure

But when you dare question some of these legitamite issues you will be told you are just too ignorant to understand it all so I have learned to not get involved with these threads and conversations. Peace Out

New Worldly Translation

You know there are some people who believe in God and evolution, and do not believe the earth is only 10,000 years old. Lilly

Lovelylil - Something genuinely confuses me about that stance. How do you reconcile the fall of man and the need for a ransom sacrifice with evolution. There's a vast dichotomy between the two. This is a mistake many religionists make in that they try to appear apologetic to science and accept that the story of Adam and Eve was an allegorical story but forget that the happenings in the garden of Eden form the cornerstone for the rest of scriptural dogma.

A previous comment that said creationists or religionists who accept evolution and scientific discoveries are being honest was far of the mark as they are actually disingenuous. If one believes in the prime mover type god who sets things in motion then has no further part in proceedings then that god is an irrelevance. If one believes in a god who does take an interest in human affairs and dictated a book for you to live by, but you pick and choose your own morality from that book and which parts to believe and which parts to discard as unscientific, unhistoric or even distasteful then that book is an irrelevance.

Narkissos

NWT

This is a mistake many religionists make in that they try to appear apologetic to science and accept that the story of Adam and Eve was an allegorical story but forget that the happenings in the garden of Eden form the cornerstone for the rest of scriptural dogma.

What, pray tell, is "scriptural dogma"?

Scripture and dogma, actually, are two completely different things.

Don't mistake dogmatical (e.g. JW) summaries of the so-called "Bible message" for the complex reality of the Biblical texts. As far as scripture is concerned, what texts in the Bible do you think depend on Genesis 2--3? You will hardly find any in the OT; and perhaps a couple of them in the NT (1 Corinthians 15; Romans 5 for instance); whether they depend on a literal reading of Genesis is still another matter, and a question of interpretation.

There is such a thing as liberal Christianity, which welcomes Bible criticism, and it is not as inconsistent as you may think.

(Not that I advocate liberal Christianity: I say that for the sake of fairness.)

DanTheMan

hooberus, you once said on this board that the question of "who created the creator" is irrelevant because Creationist framework allows for an uncreated god...is this how you would still answer this question?

Creation scientist resources

Share this