Re: Creationist Theory
- From: nathan_baum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 19 Aug 2005 18:52:33 -0700
> Creationism: The belief that the Universe, the Earth, modern human
> beings, and all living things were suddenly created, at some point, by
> the universal God, based upon the objective textual evidence contained
> in the Bible.
What evidence does the Bible contain that supports Creationism?
> Supernaturalism Worldview: Dr. Scott defines supernatural to mean
> "more natural".
Who's Dr. Scott, and why should I accept his definition of supernatural
over the definitions of every dictionary ever written?
> Supernaturalism accepts all facts produced by Naturalism methodologies
> which do not contradict or conflict with the objective facts of
> Creationism, and rejects all explanations, interpretations, and
> conclusions based on these facts which do the same, because of the
> admitted bias of Naturalism via its exclusion of the Divine under the
> false guise of neutrality.
What are the objective facts of Creationism?
> Darwinism/Theory of Evolution (ToE): The belief that living things
> originated from other livings and not ultimately from the God of
> Genesis the Creator. ToE claims modern human beings and all other
> living things gradually evolved from other living things, that every
> living species naturally changed into their present state from some
> other previous living species (macroevolution) and was "not the work of
> God." (Mayr, One Long Argument, 1999)
The correct way to phrase that is :
| Neo-Darwinism/Theory of Evolution (ToE): The belief that living
| originated from other livings. ToE claims modern human beings and all
| living things gradually evolved from other living things, that every
| living species naturally changed into their present state from some
| other previous living species.
> "The explanation and interpretation of scientific data, facts, and
> evidence favorable to the Naturalism Worldview." Darwinism/ToE assumes
> macroevolution a fact based upon the facts of microevolution.
ToE assumes the theory of common descent to be a good bet based upon
evidence garnered from diverse scientific fields such as biolology,
geology, archeology, paeleontology.
> Naturalism Worldview: A philosophy and a methodology of determining
> truth which excludes any data, facts, evidence, explanations,
> interpretations, or conclusions supporting Divine involvement or the
> Supernatural worldview. But naturalists insist they are Divine neutral
> in spite of the admitted exclusions.
The correct way to phrase that is:
| Naturalism Worldview: A philosophy and a methodology of determining
| falsehood which excludes any data, facts, evidence, explanations,
| interpretations, or conclusions which are not relevant to determining
> The belief that the study of the physical universe called cosmology,
> and nature, is all that there is to determine objective truth from, and
> is the exclusive domain of legitimate science and its investigation.
I'm having trouble interpreting that sentence. Are you saying that
naturalists accept only two fields of study: named 'cosmology' and
'nature'? That seems unlikely, so it would be great if you could
clarify what you _are_ saying.
> Scientism: The accepted modern term for Naturalism, yet with the
> specific added dimension that God, the supernatural, and miracles do
> not exist, and are admittedly excluded and dismissed '''''a
Who accepts 'scientism' as a term for 'naturalism'?
"God, the supernatural and miracles" is highly redundant. Both God and
miracles are supernatural by definition.
Science of course excludes 'the supernatural' as a point of principle.
But that doesn't mean what you're suggesting it means. If somebody came
along with strong scientific evidence that something which is currently
considered supernatural -- such as telepathy, miracles or invisible
pink unicorns -- really exists, then that something wouldn't be
supernatural any more.
> Scientism is the branch of Science which militantly rules out the
> Divine, under the attempted objective color that the exclusion and
> dismissal of God is the correct way of pursuing scientific
> investigation and enquiry. Scientism, like Naturalism, is the attempt
> to objectify atheist philosophy via science. Hence, Scientism is
> atheist "religion", that has as its only goal to erase God out of all
> equations despite the evidence.
I wasn't aware science had a militarised branch. Can you post
references to recent troop movements of the Scientism Army? Do they
come under the authority of NATO or the UN?
> Any definition that does not rightly assume the existence of God is
> attempting to equate independant Science to be synonymous with
> Naturalism/Scientism Worldviews.
In science, it is not possible to _rightly_ assume the existance of
A scientific theory keeps its assumptions to the bare minimum,
rejecting those assumptions which are not relevant to the theory.
> The Bible claims to be the eternal word of God. Its not important for
> purposes at this point to have the Bible be asserted as the eternal
> word of God - only that it CLAIMS to be the eternal word of God.
> The claim is verified as true when individual claims therein are in
> fact evidenced to be true.
No, it is not. If I make two unrelated claims, and one turns out to be
true, that does not make my other claim any more likely to be true (or
1. I am God.
2. Next week, Mars will not fall from the sky.
If your interpretation of the truth is correct, then when Mars does not
fall from the sky next week (assuming that my claim is accurate, of
course), then I am more likely to be God.
> In other words, Biblical claims and veracity are decided the same way
> any claims are decided.
Excellent. Then you'll certainly agree that I'm God if Mars doesn't
fall from the sky?
> What makes Biblical claims and declarations of
> special significance is the fact of WHEN they were written, and if
> these texts of great antiquity correspond to objects in reality TODAY,
> then the identification proves Divine prediction, prophecy, and
> control, and hence, shows why the word/Bible is called the eternal word
> of God because it has the "impossible" ability to be universally
> applicable in any time period of history and still be perfectly
An impossible ability is, as the name suggests, impossible. The Bible
is _not_ universally applicable in any time period of history, and has
never been perfectly accurate. I have a particular case I would be
interested in your refuting: how would one have applied the Bible
before it was written?
> If God IS, (and He is), then His subjective views as found in the Bible
> become objective truth.
That's not a circular argument. No siree.
> This means the Bible is the benchmark of immutable truth. If facts
> appear to contradict, then the truth as declared in the Scriptures,
> logically, overrides because it is the eternal word of God.
I'm sorry, I had mistaken you for a Creationist. Reading this
paragraph, I come to the clear conclusion that you are obviously a
scientist parodying Creationist beliefs.
> Creationist theory can be falsified by producing facts that falsify
> claims of truth in the Bible, but that has never happened, thats why we
> are Creationists - because of the evidence.
Nobody has managed to disprove that, say, at around 2400BC, "the whole
Earth was of one language"?
If that wasn't true, then writings found from that time would clearly
show that. So all writings from prior to 2400BC thus far discovered
have been in just one language, right?
> Genesis declares that God created Adam suddenly c.5100 BC. [Source:
> Codex Alexandrinus]
The source for declarations made in Genesis should, surely, be Genesis
itself? The book is generally available, in fact it is even available
online. Perhaps you could see where it says that God created Adam
c.5100 BC, suddenly or otherwise, and post a citation.
> This fact is supported by science via the observable ID of the genus
> and the fact that no facts exist in contradiction.
> We know each cell contains volumes of information like a computer chip does.
Even if we did know that, what would that prove?
> We know IC exists and by definition means the system cannot of evolved
> step by step. We know the eye and brain could not of evolved by chance
> - only if you assert in defiance of all logic and sense.
We scientists know IC exists and by definition means the system could
not have evolved step by step _by the addition of features alone_.
> In short, Creationist theory declares and predicts that the subjective
> views of God found in the Bible correspond to objects in reality today.
> The most stunning example is the declaration of the 4 icons of
> evolution in Romans 1:23 existing in the context of what persons must
> believe who are suffering His wrath of blinding/insight removal for
> denying Him Creator credit. IOW, the very existence of
> Darwinism/ToE/macro/human evolution theory proves the Bible as it
> fulfills the object in reality that gives substance to the claim of
Similarly, if I say that "Elvis is alive and well and juggling walruses
in a travelling circus" and "Ice is cold", then should ice be found to
be cold, Elvis will indeed be alive and well and juggling walruses in a
- Re: Creationist Theory
- From: Deadrat
- Re: Creationist Theory
- Creationist Theory
- From: Ray Martinez
- Creationist Theory
- Prev by Date: Re: It all comes full-circle ... WMDs found in Iraq
- Next by Date: Re: Smoking
- Previous by thread: Re: Creationist Theory
- Next by thread: Re: Creationist Theory