Posts Tagged ‘Young Earth creationism’

Why Darwinians Crash and Burn in Debates with Creation Scientists

September 7, 2013
English: Isaac Newton Dansk: Sir Isaac Newton ...

English: Isaac Newton Dansk: Sir Isaac Newton Français : Newton (1642-1727) Bahasa Indonesia: Issac Newton saat berusia 46 tahun pada lukisan karya Godfrey Kneller tahun 1689 Lietuvių: Seras Izaokas Niutonas 1689-aisiais Македонски: Сер Исак Њутн на возраст од 46 години (1689) Nederlands: Newton geboren 4 januari 1643 Türkçe: Sir Isaac Newton. (ö. 20 Mart 1727) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Now, please show me how this works in creationism? As far as I can tell, the inadequacies of the creation hypothesis never get corrected.”

–I’ll bet for any “inadequacy” in Creation science you think you can “tell”, it’s been refuted ad infinitum.

This is one reason darwinians crash and burn in any debate with fair rules. Antony Flew‘s atheism crashed and burned, felled by the digital, symbolically coded, DNA.

Long-ages faith avoids dealing with

polystrate fossils,
the absence of any “punctuated’ in their “punctuated equilibrium”,
with Isaac Newton‘s recognition that rational rules requires a rational Creator,
the fact that ALL the major areas of scientific study were initiated by young-Earth Creationists,
the total lack of fossil evidence for darwinism,
the anthropic principle,
the Goldilocks planet,
the long history of long-age theories shattered by discoveries,
the ubiquity of irreducible complexity in biological structures,
the utter lack of even a speculative hypothesis of how life could have ever evolved from non-life,
the appearance of sex in a spontaneous world,
the correct predictions of today’s creationists like Russ Humphreys,
the censorship of creationism in Establishment publications by Defenders of the Darwinian Faith,
red-shift anomalies by the dozens, catalogued by Halton Arp
evidence of light-speed slowing down in light from the stars, quoted by Joao Magueijo in “Faster than the Speed of Light”,
debates with equal-treatment rules with Creation scientists,

and last but not least, the very idea that the Intelligent Design theories might not be young-earth creationist.
and more last but not least, panic hits them at the very thought that creationism might be the truth.

Which is why the topic was selected in the first place, no doubt, somebody may have wanted to get a ridicule fest going, to strengthen his faith in the untenable.

As to schooling, the best thing is to let parents educate their own kids, or have them educated, as they see fit. Nobody has a higher moral right in this world to force anybody to pay to have their kids told the parents are wrong.


Pastor Jeffress is wrong: Billions?! O’Reilly likes Bible doubters

March 25, 2013
English: Adam and Eve were both naked & were n...

English: Adam and Eve were both naked & were not ashamed, as in Genesis 2:25: “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” (KJV) illustration from the 1728 Figures de la Bible; illustrated by Gerard Hoet (1648–1733) and others, and published by P. de Hondt in The Hague; image courtesy Bizzell Bible Collection, University of Oklahoma Libraries (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is my reaction to this story at Christian News:

Pastor Jeffress CANNOT believe in the Bible “cover to cover” if he does not believe its historical accuracy in the straightforward reading of it. The six-day creation is emphasized scripturally in 21 different ways right there in Genesis One, by the word “day” itself, PLUS the ordinal numbering of the day (the 2nd day is the day after the 1st day), PLUS AND MOST IMPORTANTLY the emphasis given to the 24-hour day as we know it by the use of the “evening and the morning”.

Make no mistake: Jesus believed in the Creation as told in Genesis, it’s plain to see and clearly shown. He talked about Adam and Eve, and He who made them.

Wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing have infiltrated congregations and are teaching doctrines of devils.

Jeremiah 2 shows you that Darwinian (and neo-Darwinian) evolution are just ancient pagan myths, a “stock art my father” and a rock “hath brought be forth”. Nothing new under the sun. This is a materialistic superstition of modern pagans (atheists) who cling to these dogmas so as to escape believing in God.

Besides, the facts of science itself has brought 10s and 100s of thousands of hard physical scientists to faith in God. Polonium halos, polystrate fossils, inverted sedimentary layers, sea shells covering the land surface in every conceivable corner of the world, the Cambrian explosion, the fossil record testifying to original special creation of each kind, the spectacular design of the purely symbolic digital coded language of DNA, the spot-on prediction of the magnetic field strength of Saturn and Uranus by young-earth Creation scientist Russ Humphreys (putting to shame all the official dogma-enforcing NASA scientists –and prediction based on Genesis One)…

The list is tens of thousands of proofs of the precise accuracy of the word of God and the facts make fools out of the smarter-than-thou snotty-nosed class that have to revise their own dogmatic just-so blabber every couple of years because the FACTS keep proving them wrong over and over again.

Bill Nye blabbers the same religious dogmas on John Stossel’s show

December 16, 2012
John Stossel

John Stossel (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


“Observable and repeatable”?

How about scientist Russ Humphrey’s bull’s eye accurate prediction of the magnetic field strength of planets Neptune and Uranus before the satellite sent back the measurements, and the NASA guys getting it orders of magnitude wrong?

Bill Nye holds his evolutionary beliefs with very religious tenacity.

John Stossel should host a debate between Bill Nye “the science guy” and one of the foremost Creation scientists that have done it, like a great many associated with The Institute of Creation Research, or The CRS Research Journal.

Nye says you can’t disprove evolution and that you cannot prove the Earth is 6,000 or 10,000 years old. Not that he’s ever tried to think about how you could.

Macro-evolution is NOT “observable and repeatable” the way they talk about. What they do talk about are the same observable and repeatable things that the Young Earth Creationists emphatically agree are facts, and Creationist scientists say are most definitely evidence for a young Earth. 

Stossel did ask the question that Nye says is “unknowable”, a good copout but that’s one of their own gaps. Their gap theory is that they don’t have to know how it may have happened, they just know it did.

In fact, they apply the same basic leaps of logic in their thinking about how a molecule may be the ancient ancestor of man. It could have happened this way, could have happened that way, all by itself unguided, but their best actual “observable and repeatable” examples are what Creation scientists agree with.

The difference is that Creationists precisely stay with what is observable and repeatable. The wild canine species all descended from the same original wolf-like ancestry, cats trace their lineage back to some kind of cat, and all this is obvious from observation and deduction. A net loss of information ensues.

Finches to finches, and a blind fish that even still has the gene for eyesight that lived in caves. You try it. Take some fish that can see and put them in a tank with zero light for a few generations and watch what happens.

Bill Nye believes in his long-ages unguided process that produces an information processing machine complete with a digital processing language and complete feedback mechanisms, better than any self-maintaining set of robots that any of today’s best IT engineers can do.