7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Well, that's just because you're an idiot. I'm pretty sure you are.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Creationist are losing the battle in the world wide hysteria over covid-19.
- Thread starter tieman55
- Start date
- Status
Well, that's just because you're an idiot. I'm pretty sure you are.
How many scientific breakthroughs have been made by YEC scientists?
Leave it to you to focus on the single sentence that is least relevant to anything being discussed...
How does your claim that it's atheists doing all the important science these days advance your argument? Are they lying to us about the existence of viruses and their deadly effects? Are you suggesting that viruses don't exist and that we need not deal with them or are you suggesting that the bible tells us that they exist and how to deal with them? If the latter, give me chapter and verse. If the former then should we simply ignore COVID 19 and let all the sick old people die a semi-slow, semi-miserable death? How would either option have anything to do with how old the scientists involved believe the Earth to be?
If it's neither of those things then just what is your point? What's so good about COVID 19, Malaria, AIDS, Polio, Leprosy, Tetanus, Gingivitis, Syphilis, Cholera, Anthrax and any other infectious disease that you seem to believe were all created by God as part of His "very good" creation? What should we do about these diseases, if anything?
Leviticus 13 - 15 talks about quarantining both the sick and burning clothing with active Leprosy and what to do with people who recover from the disease as well as what to do with bodily discharges, etc. Why on God's good Earth would they do such a thing if disease is a good thing? Did you even know Leviticus 13 existed?
Clete
Have you been to Church lately? At least the churches that I have been to / seen /attended . . . hand sanitizers are ubiquitous and when you don't use them, like me, your are looked down upon. So, I ask you one simple question: Do Christian's in general think sterile is good?
Right Divider
Body part
That has NOTHING to do with the post that I quoted.
First Covid killing old people . . . Just as you quoted the Bible, Everybody "surely" dies. The only bad death is an unprepared one, so be prepared. The flu coincidentally or by design just happens to provide us with time, in our old age, to be prepared for dying . . . pretty cool.
To your exact question, RE: Covid-19 "What's good about it ?" You have to die of something, are you saying that dying of the flu is worse than dying from cancer? Or dying in a plane crash? Or dying in a fire? Or dying form a gunshot? How about dying from liver failure? I am not sure what your point is since we are all going to die. Are you saying that dying from the flu is the worst way to die?
Also, are you saying we know everything about all the millions of viruses? Like do we know how they interact within healthy people to perhaps make them stronger? Do we know how viruses interact with all the different strains of bacteria? Do we know how viruses affect our children who never die from the flu?
Question for you: is it possible that we just might discover, some day, that viruses are indeed all good? Or are you all knowing? Wow, I have an idea, what not stop beating the dead horse of evolution and study why viruses are good! Then, as we find good viruses (which there are many), those creationist could go and tell others and they might believe that creation and the Creator are good!
It use to be that people died of old age, but no longer, in the blame game era, something has to be the cause death, it just can't be old age. You don't get any money if you die from natural causes, in fact there is no such thing as a natural cause of death any longer, as people no longer believe that you are "surely" going to die . . . and hey . . . natural causes, you don't qualify for a check.
If Adam would have lived in our time and died yesterday, his death, would of course be from covid-19 . . . that way Eve would have gotten a nice settlement from uncle Ed
Where do viruses come from?
If God didn't create the corona virus, who did? Did it create itself or is it eternal? Did our immune system create itself as well? Are you saying China created it? LOL
In the history of mankind, we have created only one pathogen, care to name it? It is good for brownie points
(Clue, we created it unintentionally in hospitals)If man could create a pathogen that would kill all men, we would not be here. LOL
Next, Adam's curse.
Adam died at a very old age, 9 times longer then we live today and I agree that the curse may have or did shorten his life. So what shortened our lives down to 10 percent of what Adam lived? Did God add an additional curse without letting us know the specifics? Or was it something that God saw that would happen as the result of the flood? I believe the latter is far more likely. But the far more important thing is, is it a good or bad thing that men's lives have been shortened? And the answer to that, in my opinion, is a no-brainer, YES Looking back on it, I will bet that Adam thought living for a 1000 years was more a curse than having to work for food. LOL
Your ignoring the question, in creation, is sterile good?
Too many to count.
Here's the problem, you made the following claim:
You claimed that at the forefront of ALL scientific advancements were "Atheistical Darwinialistic evolutionalists."
Yet...
https://kgov.com/fathers
Too many to count.
Here's the problem, you made the following claim:
| Atheistical Darwinialistic evolutionalists have been at the forefront of all scientific advancements for the past century or more. |
You claimed that at the forefront of ALL scientific advancements were "Atheistical Darwinialistic evolutionalists."
Yet...
| In a list of major inventions and technologies since 1860, can you identify ones that were enabled by Darwinian insight, or by belief in an old earth? Countless technologies and inventions were enabled by Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, Bacon, Pascal, Dalton, Faraday, Joule, Kelvin, Lister, Carver, and the Wright Brothers. But they're all on OUR creationism list. But, which of these did the inventors need Darwinism to develop? Light bulb, vacuums, pasteurization, railway, typewriter, electric motor, carburetor, loudspeaker, telephone, phonograph, microphone, photographic film, seismograph, solar panels, punch cards, cars, combustion engine, AC transformer, contact lens, tractor, ballpoint pen, cinematography, wind energy, zipper, escalator, X-ray, remote control, tape recorder, air conditioning, fire fighting foam, neon lamp, EKG, airplane, seismometer, sonar, radio, TV, rockets, radar, sliced bread, transfusion (think Harvey here), EEG, steel, radio telescope, jet engine, computer, Velcro, transistor, atomic clock, nuclear reactor, fiber optics, hard drives, satellites, spandex and spam, lasers, digital photography, optical disc, 3D holography, LED, mouse, lunar lander, Venus lander, video games, video cassette, space station, e-mail, karaoke , LCD, microprocessor, MRI, Ethernet, PC, DNA sequencing, Internet, Plasma TV, GPS, MP3 player, flash drive? |
https://kgov.com/fathers
How many of them were YECs?
The number of scientists who believe something has no bearing on whether that something is true or not. Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy. The question was answered, however, on the page that I linked.
Are you unable to identify any scientists who, in light of their Darwinian beliefs, were able to make the above scientific advancements, or perhaps advancements not listed?
Your claim was, again:
| Atheistical Darwinialistic evolutionalists have been at the forefront of all scientific advancements for the past century or more. |
If they were at the forefront, then you should be able to easily name the scientist(s) and his/their contribution(s), no?
UN, I would posit that there are very few scientists, fewer than the number of scientists listed on kgov.com/fathers, who have many ANY sort of advancement that could be considered the "forefront" of scientific advancement.
More to the point...If we consider the greatest names in science who contributed the greatest scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century (Einstein, Tesla, Bohr, Planck, Hoyle, Pauling, etc), how many of them were YECs?
You mean like George Washington Carver?
Why are you ignoring the question directed at you?
| In a list of major inventions and technologies since 1860, can you identify ones that were enabled by Darwinian insight, or by belief in an old earth? Countless technologies and inventions were enabled by Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, Bacon, Pascal, Dalton, Faraday, Joule, Kelvin, Lister, Carver, and the Wright Brothers. But they're all on OUR creationism list. But, which of these did the inventors need Darwinism to develop? Light bulb, vacuums, pasteurization, railway, typewriter, electric motor, carburetor, loudspeaker, telephone, phonograph, microphone, photographic film, seismograph, solar panels, punch cards, cars, combustion engine, AC transformer, contact lens, tractor, ballpoint pen, cinematography, wind energy, zipper, escalator, X-ray, remote control, tape recorder, air conditioning, fire fighting foam, neon lamp, EKG, airplane, seismometer, sonar, radio, TV, rockets, radar, sliced bread, transfusion (think Harvey here), EEG, steel, radio telescope, jet engine, computer, Velcro, transistor, atomic clock, nuclear reactor, fiber optics, hard drives, satellites, spandex and spam, lasers, digital photography, optical disc, 3D holography, LED, mouse, lunar lander, Venus lander, video games, video cassette, space station, e-mail, karaoke , LCD, microprocessor, MRI, Ethernet, PC, DNA sequencing, Internet, Plasma TV, GPS, MP3 player, flash drive? |
This in response to your claim:
| Atheistical Darwinialistic evolutionalists have been at the forefront of all scientific advancements for the past century or more. |
Which of the scientists who fall into that category needed atheistical Darwinialistic evolutionist beliefs to invent the above items?
Which of the scientists you provided a brief list of needed those beliefs to make their advancements?
And if your answer is "such beliefs were not needed," then there is no need to make the claim, "Atheistical Darwinialistic evolutionalists have been at the forefront of all scientific advancements for the past century or more," because their beliefs are irrelevant to the advancements being made, and it makes your claim look like inane posturing.
I can point to the greatest scientists who ever lived and say that that majority (not that that makes their beliefs correct) were, at the very least, Christians who believed God created the universe, and that even after the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, the ones alive still publicly rejected natural origins and Darwinian evolution, and indicated that the evidence supports belief in a supernatural Creator.
In fact if we assume a 6,000 year old universe, then everything we understand about the physical sciences must necessarily be wrong. Everything from astronomy to physics to genetics to geology, and more, is utterly false.
The question is a response to that position, UN.
| Which Technologies or Inventions Depend Upon Darwinism or an Old Earth? Holman QuickSource Guide to Understanding Creation states that young earth creation, "requires one to regard virtually all of modern science as fundamentally mistaken... about most of the... principles that have made modern technologies possible." Its authors, Whorton and Roberts, have that claim in common with evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky, and those who've said the same to us here at RSR: Lawrence Krauss and Alate_One from over at our sister site, TheologyOnLine.com. Dobzhansky claimed that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." And TOL's Alate_One claimed on the Bob Enyart Live Forum that, "Mainstream science is the only science that actually works." So Real Science Radio has a question for A_O, Whorton and Roberts, Krauss, and Dobzhansky (although we'll have to wait to ask him till judgment day). In a list of major inventions and technologies since 1860, can you identify ones that were enabled by Darwinian insight, or by belief in an old earth? Countless technologies and inventions were enabled by Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, Bacon, Pascal, Dalton, Faraday, Joule, Kelvin, Lister, Carver, and the Wright Brothers. But they're all on OUR creationism list. But, which of these did the inventors need Darwinism to develop? Light bulb, vacuums, pasteurization, railway, typewriter, electric motor, carburetor, loudspeaker, telephone, phonograph, microphone, photographic film, seismograph, solar panels, punch cards, cars, combustion engine, AC transformer, contact lens, tractor, ballpoint pen, cinematography, wind energy, zipper, escalator, X-ray, remote control, tape recorder, air conditioning, fire fighting foam, neon lamp, EKG, airplane, seismometer, sonar, radio, TV, rockets, radar, sliced bread, transfusion (think Harvey here), EEG, steel, radio telescope, jet engine, computer, Velcro, transistor, atomic clock, nuclear reactor, fiber optics, hard drives, satellites, spandex and spam, lasers, digital photography, optical disc, 3D holography, LED, mouse, lunar lander, Venus lander, video games, video cassette, space station, e-mail, karaoke , LCD, microprocessor, MRI, Ethernet, PC, DNA sequencing, Internet, Plasma TV, GPS, MP3 player, flash drive? (See more inventions and discoveries.) |
https://kgov.com/fathers
Try answering the question, UN. Don't be scared of it.
Here are a few of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time, none of which make sense if we assume the YEC perspective:
- Relativity
- The molecular structure of DNA
- Genome editing
- CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats)
- RNA-sequencing
- Discovery of exoplanets
I think you'll find that all of the below (with minor tweaks to relativity) make sense in light of YEC, but make no sense in light of "Atheistical Darwinialistic evolutionalist" beliefs.
I presume you mean "general relativity," yes?
I would argue that it can be understood BETTER when we understand that "time" isn't an ontological thing, and that nothing ever leaves the "present," and that the only thing affected by moving at relativistic speeds are "clocks," not time itself.
I'm not sure why you think ANYTHING having to do with genetics wouldn't make sense with YEC, considering that information systems cannot arise without intelligence, namely God...
In other words, since information is not physical:
| Regardless of how broad and deep mankind develops its understanding of physics and information, it will never discover a symbolic logic function in the classical laws of physics. Information is not physical, and hence, strictly material systems cannot give rise to information systems. |
https://kgov.com/information
Why would this be a problem for YEC?
In fact, I would make the assertion that atheistic beliefs are what has held scientific advancements in astronomy BACK for the past century (not that there hasn't been any advancements whatsoever, just that we would be much further along scientifically speaking than we are now)
Again, UN, you still have yet to answer the question that you were asked:
| In a list of major inventions and technologies since 1860, can you identify ones that were enabled by Darwinian insight, or by belief in an old earth? Countless technologies and inventions were enabled by Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, Bacon, Pascal, Dalton, Faraday, Joule, Kelvin, Lister, Carver, and the Wright Brothers. But they're all on OUR creationism list. But, which of these did the inventors need Darwinism to develop? Light bulb, vacuums, pasteurization, railway, typewriter, electric motor, carburetor, loudspeaker, telephone, phonograph, microphone, photographic film, seismograph, solar panels, punch cards, cars, combustion engine, AC transformer, contact lens, tractor, ballpoint pen, cinematography, wind energy, zipper, escalator, X-ray, remote control, tape recorder, air conditioning, fire fighting foam, neon lamp, EKG, airplane, seismometer, sonar, radio, TV, rockets, radar, sliced bread, transfusion (think Harvey here), EEG, steel, radio telescope, jet engine, computer, Velcro, transistor, atomic clock, nuclear reactor, fiber optics, hard drives, satellites, spandex and spam, lasers, digital photography, optical disc, 3D holography, LED, mouse, lunar lander, Venus lander, video games, video cassette, space station, e-mail, karaoke , LCD, microprocessor, MRI, Ethernet, PC, DNA sequencing, Internet, Plasma TV, GPS, MP3 player, flash drive? |
I'm afraid it's much worse than that. I would amend Dobzhansky's statement to say, "Nothing in all of modern science makes sense except in the light of evolution." From astronomy to physics to genetics to geology and so on, none of it makes any sense at all except in the light of an evolving universe that is billions of years old.
Those are inventions. Did Eli Whitney need to know about evolution or YEC to invent the cotton gin? No. Those things have nothing to do with each other. People can still invent all sorts of products without having any understanding of YEC or evolution. But try understanding astronomy, or genetics, or geology, or physics with the assumption of a 6,000 year old universe and see how far it gets you.
Does that mean you can't be YEC? No, you can still believe anything you want. But try being a YEC and accomplishing anything significant in the physical sciences.
Last edited:
1) Any major figure in science who lived before Darwin doesn't count, because they had no way of knowing about the theory of evolution.
2) Galileo was persecuted for his views by the existing church of the time.
3) Newton held to a number of unorthodox scientific and religious views.
4) Kelvin was certainly no "young earth" creationist, as he hypothesized that the earth was between 20 million and 40 million years old.
Last edited:
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
No theory is called "the theory of evolution". In order to be a theory, something has to be either true or false; what is nonsense is neither true nor false. Thus, what you erroneously call "the theory of evolution", being the nonsense that it is, is not a theory.
- Status