Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Stay here a year. If you still think at the end of that time that the Creation Institute is a bastion of truth, I will light a candle in a Christian church and utter a fervent prayer that someone will always take care of you.
After watching some of the videos I have to conclude that SOME of the creation proponents are shysters that take advantage of people that are inadequately educated and cannot grasp basic principles.
There are folks that do not get math and there are folks that do not get evolution.
One of the biggest points in favor of creation science is specific design of each part of nature. The Institute of Creation Research (Home | The Institute for Creation Research) is an excellent source of viewing the latest research on our world and its age. It addresses things like the age of the earth, the origin of creation, the integrity of "kinds" which descend without evidence to the claims of evolution (see The Institute for Creation Research). Oh, about the 'peppered moth'...try this: The Institute for Creation Research. Most of the claims of evolution are actually fueled by changed within kinds rather than cross mutating and making a strong strain in the mixture.
Sorry...evolution has been found empty again. So sad, but I am glad! It shows our Creator to be the Almighty, All Loving God that He is.
For the scientifically literate, The Institute for Creation Research is as much a joke as the Flat Earth Society.
Location: In Thy presence is fulness of joy... Psa 16:11
299 posts, read 263,875 times
Reputation: 380
Scientifically literate is not Darwinian.
Newton was scientifically literate, and a God-fearing Bible believer.
Joseph Lister honored the Bible, and his work in scientific medicine has not been debunked nor forgotten.
George W. Carver was scientifically literate, and very much a Bible believing Christian.
Johann Kepler, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Louie Pasteur all had a high regard for the Bible and the God of the Scripture, and made a permanent mark of improvement in scientific knowledge and application of it.
They were not perfect men, but they honored a perfect God and His Word. And they used their minds to understand His creation...and God guided them to improve the world around them.
It is so easy to broad-brush. It is much better to be intellectually honest with yourself before the living God. By the way, that is what the video by Ray Comfort (God vs Evolution) expresses.
Unfortunately, the people here that NEED to see those tend to be rather closed-minded about such things.
You were almost right. "Unfortunately, the people here who need to see the refutation of these crummy religious propaganda films tend to be rather closed-minded about such things."
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastorDave
Thank ya, TroutDude. Now THAT's a proper welcome!
Oh, are you new? I don't usually post here, unless a Challenge (like this thread) is thrown down.
Welcome to the boards.
I'll certainly agree that the ID argument was the nearest that creationism got to credible science. If it had been credible science, Behe would have been the man to demonstrate it. But it wasn't. Irreducible complexity failed to stand up as a valid scientific hypothesis (never mind a proven one) and the proof in a court of law that it was merely religion dressed up in a lab coat surprised no -one.
No doubt there will more of these pointless and irrelevant attacks on evolution theory, so there will be plenty of opportunity to see what a joke the ICR really is. I believe they still use arguments that Answers in Genesis reccommend creationists should not use.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-11-2015 at 06:52 AM..
Scientifically literate is not Darwinian.
Newton was scientifically literate, and a God-fearing Bible believer.
Joseph Lister honored the Bible, and his work in scientific medicine has not been debunked nor forgotten.
George W. Carver was scientifically literate, and very much a Bible believing Christian.
Johann Kepler, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Louie Pasteur all had a high regard for the Bible and the God of the Scripture, and made a permanent mark of improvement in scientific knowledge and application of it.
They were not perfect men, but they honored a perfect God and His Word. And they used their minds to understand His creation...and God guided them to improve the world around them.
It is so easy to broad-brush. It is much better to be intellectually honest with yourself before the living God. By the way, that is what the video by Ray Comfort (God vs Evolution) expresses.
This is the well -worn 'all the famous old scientists were Creationists' argument. So they were. There was no other theory on the table at the time. Of course their research was intended to show how amazingly well God had put it all together.
Unfortunately their discoveries showed nore and more that it worked by natural processes and there was less and less sign of a god being involved.
And by the 18th c, the founding fathers had amongst them a number of deists - they still believed that God had made everything first off (there was no other theory around) but He did not have anything to do with the world after that.
In the 19th c, geology and the discovery of fossils first cast serious doubt on the 8,000 year -old creation date. But it was of course Darwin whose researches really put up an alternative to Genesis -type creation.
The funny thing is that Evolution -theory doesn't disprove a god, or even that a god started the whole thing off (first cell). That's why the evolution debate is actually irrelevant..
I thank you folks for giving me the chance to say what all you godfearing bods out there need to hear - God -belief and evolution are not mutually opposed. Really. The argument is really about whether lifeforms came about as shown in the fossil record - from fossil single cells to cave -man, even if a god had started it off and was helping it aling, or whether they came about as described in genesis.
The argument is not between Darwin and God - believers, but between Darwin and Bible - literalists. Be sure you know what you are fighting for.
One of the biggest points in favor of creation science is specific design of each part of nature. The Institute of Creation Research (Home | The Institute for Creation Research) is an excellent source of viewing the latest research on our world and its age. It addresses things like the age of the earth, the origin of creation, the integrity of "kinds" which descend without evidence to the claims of evolution (see The Institute for Creation Research). Oh, about the 'peppered moth'...try this: The Institute for Creation Research. Most of the claims of evolution are actually fueled by changed within kinds rather than cross mutating and making a strong strain in the mixture.
Sorry...evolution has been found empty again. So sad, but I am glad! It shows our Creator to be the Almighty, All Loving God that He is.
Our creator is a loving God!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
