0
   

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

 
 
TheCorrectResponse
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 09:46 am
Don't you mean:
Do you want to question our Athiestic, morally bankrupt, emotionally based understaning of chemistry and particle physics now?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 01:08 pm
real life wrote:
I've objected to the way the law is selectively applied by many evolutionists.


HOW is it selectively applied again?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2007 03:56 pm
Below is an excerpt from "One Universe, Under God" by Liza Lentini in the current issue of Discover Magazine. It describes how creationism is taught today in the United States.

Quote:
When a Kansas sky is dark and looming, natives are, ironically, content. A torrential day is, for them, better than one characterized by a swing in temperature, odd winds, and as one local describes it, "a strangeness in the air" that signals an impending tornado. On one particularly rainy day in Wichita, the roads are flooded in deep, thick puddles, and with the rain estimated to continue for the next four days, it seems positively biblical.

Off the main drag in northeast Wichita sits New Song Academy, a bright brick building with a charming cul-de-sac and bright green bushes. The entrance is a cheerful reflection of its name, and one is immediately greeted by a fresco of Noah's ark, an image repeated on the sofa pillows, in other paintings, a patchwork quilt, and crafted items enclosed in a locked glass case. Statues of elephants, giraffes, and lions sit poised and motionless, two by two. At the front desk, cheery Linda clicks on the loudspeaker to start the day. "Good morning, teachers and boys and girls. Let's fold our hands and bow our heads and close our eyes and get ready to speak to God this morning. Heavenly Father, thank you so much for this wonderful day. Thank you for all the many blessings you give us. Each and every day. Please watch over our teachers, watch over our mommies and daddies today, and bring them safely back to us this afternoon. Help us to listen to our teachers and do the things you would like us to do in your name. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen."

New Song Academy is a private Christian school whose students range from infancy through grade six. If the word "Christian" has become taboo in certain quarters, the words "Christian school" are utterly detonating. But the nondenominational New Song Academy has nothing to apologize for. As owner and executive director Phyllis Lowen states, they don't adhere to a method of teaching that involves "shoving anything down their throats."

Amy White is young, blond, and greets her students with "sweetheart" and a kind voice that never alters, even when she needs to use a firm hand. A young boy gets up out of his seat and comes to her for help. "Go back to your seat and raise your hand, sweetheart," she says. "Manners and discipline are very important here," Amy tells me. "Even after lunch they get a cookie, but only if they've used two ?'pleases' and two ?'thank yous.'?" Behavior is noted by a colored square stuck beside the child's name in a large decorative plaque hanging at the back end of the classroom. Blue is the best, yellow a first runner-up, and red indicates a trip to the office. Today every child has a blue square by his name. It's a good day.

The morning begins with two pledges, the Pledge of Allegiance, and then a similar, revised version, to God. This summer Amy has grades one through six in her schoolroom, lessons distinguished by individual needs. They pray before their snack?-a cupful of Cheerios?-and thank God.

New Song Academy uses A Beka Books, Christian science texts that, according to A Beka's Web site, "present the universe as the direct creation of God and refute the man-made idea of evolution." The lessons are otherwise incredibly similar to anything in the public school sector.

The students are introduced to atoms and plants, molecules and the universe, with "reminders" at the beginning and end of each lesson that these are God's laws and creations. One of the children's science books is called Investigating God's World, which starts off with a friendly reminder: "Science is possible because we live in an orderly world that operates according to a well-designed plan. As we study science, we are really studying the works of God." At the top of one of the lesson pages, in the header, reads a verse from the Bible: "Do all things without murmurings and disputings. Philippians 2:14."

"We tell them to keep an open mind," Amy says. "We don't tell them what to believe."

Midafternoon the children line up for "chapel," and today they're performing. Obediently they form two lines and file out across the decorated hallway strewn with pasted pictures they'd posted from their creationism class the week before. The title on each page is "God Made . . ." and they'd cut out pictures to demonstrate that God has made everything from the flowers to Earth itself. A collage of their images displays itself brightly.

Chapel service for these kids is an array of enthusiastic songs about their love for God, complete with Macarena-esque turning and wiggling, hand gestures, and air guitars. In the background, enigmatically, an audience of puppets bob their heads along with the music. Several things are clear: These are happy, disciplined children who love going to school, and love Jesus.

Jerald McClenahan might get some of New Song's students when they're ready to move on to high school. Berean Academy?-a nondenominational Christian school?-is 35 miles northeast of Wichita off a country road in Elbing. A science instructor for grades 9 through 12, Jerald doesn't actually use a text, finding A Beka Books "contrived." "They seem to just throw in some Scripture verses. They don't integrate [creationism and evolution] well. I don't want [my students] to be self-righteous." He chooses to start his life science classes off simply, and with the book of Genesis: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. . . . And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

"God created order and duty," Jerald says. "He's created this world. And this gives us insight into His character. The world is really a revelation of God in His greatness, evidence of His love for us." How then would you explain tragedy in the world? I ask. "God gave us this great Earth. It was a beautiful place, but because of our sins the Earth will be cursed. It's because of our abysmal mess-ups that we have bugs, crop failures, disease. Death came after sin. The Earth is cursed. God is kind to let us live. God is love, but He is righteous." Were there dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden? "Oh, yes!" he says. "Everyone loves the dinosaurs, don't they? How do I know? Because the Scriptures talked about the deluge of Noah, and before that the dinosaurs were around. They must have died off or drowned. That makes them antediluvian?-before the flood." How do you explain medical science? "Well, it's not a threat to my scientific principles to believe in miracles. There were miracles in the Gospels."

Jerald's science students are asked to do exercises to learn how to look inside themselves on a spiritual level. "Some kids say they would like to be a better daughter or son. Some say they'd like to learn how to understand God better, serve Him, be more loving towards Him. God gives us the raw material and we do the best we can. But when we see God as our Creator, it helps us." And then he adds, "The term ?'evolution' is misused. Earth scientists have an issue as to where the universe came from. The process of evolution is a biological thing, and species change. I don't believe He created variations in species?-the Pekingese and the poodles. But God created all species so that they can change. But the word ?'evolution'? Conservative scientists don't use that word."

I ask him what became of the Garden of Eden. "I don't honestly know," he says. "The Scriptures don't say what happened to it. I'm guessing it looks like my garden, filled with weeds and deterioration." And then Jerald McClenahan, science instructor, perks up a bit and declares, "But I do believe along with the Garden of Eden, He gave us the solar system, and the heaven, moon, and the stars."
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2007 08:49 am
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
parados,

I've said that I don't know how old the earth is. I think the jury's still out on that.

I tend to favor thousands rather than billions of years because the dating schemes used to come up with billions of years are notoriously contradictory and based on unproven and usually unprovable assumptions. Wonder why I'm skeptical?

So you ONLY want to talk about how old the earth is, eh? (Can't blame you, based on your poor performance talking about the origin of life.)

from the link I posted:

Quote:
The spin of the earth?-which is now about 1,000 miles [1609 km] an hour?-is gradually slowing down. Gravitational drag forces of the sun, moon, and other factors cause this. If the earth were really billions of years old, as claimed, it would already have stopped turning on its axis! This is yet another evidence that our world is not very old.

Lord Kelvin (the 19th-century physicist who introduced the Kelvin temperature scale) used this slowing rotation as a reason why the earth could not be very old. The decline in rotation rate is now known to be greater than previously thought (Thomas G. Barnes, "Physics: A Challenge to ?'Geologic Times,' " Impact 16, July 1974).

Using a different calculation, we can extrapolate backward from our present spin rate; and 5 billion years ago our planet would have had to be spinning so fast it would have changed to the shape of a flat pancake. We, today, would still have the effects of that: Our equator would now reach 40 miles [64 km] up into the sky, and our tropical areas?-and all our oceans?-would be at the poles. So, by either type of calculation, our world cannot be more than a few thousand years old.


So , we'll take this one step at a time for you.

Do you agree that the rotation of the earth is slowing down?

Oh boy, this should be fun. Wake me up when Lord Kelvin's calculations take into account the formation of the moon, a myriad of other impacts, General Relativity instead of Newtonian mechanics and plate tectonics.


Some more interesting thoughts on the slowing of the earth's rotation. (from a non-YEC, so you might even read it )

http://novan.com/earth.htm

Do you agree that the rotation of the earth is slowing down, ros?

You mention several things which might influence the speed of the earth's rotation, but you fail to state exactly WHAT effect you think they had.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2007 09:20 am
OMG, the earth is slowing! It must be angels grabbing onto it and flying in the opposite directions!

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2007 06:52 pm
real life wrote:
Do you agree that the rotation of the earth is slowing down, ros?

I don't know. I haven't looked into it.

Do you think that if the earth is slowing now that it was slowing before?

If it was slowing before, do you think it was slowing at the same rate?

Do you think the earth's rotation ever speeds up for any reason?

Do you think that there are events which change its rotation in various ways and in varying degrees?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 08:17 am
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Do you agree that the rotation of the earth is slowing down, ros?

I don't know. I haven't looked into it.
Do you think that if the earth is slowing now that it was slowing before?


Yes.

rosborne979 wrote:
If it was slowing before, do you think it was slowing at the same rate?


Not necessarily.

rosborne979 wrote:
Do you think the earth's rotation ever speeds up for any reason?


Unlikely.

rosborne979 wrote:
Do you think that there are events which change its rotation in various ways and in varying degrees?


It's possible.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 11:16 am
maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
I've objected to the way the law is selectively applied by many evolutionists.


HOW is it selectively applied again?


When an evolutionist says 'You see, Real Life, the Earth is an open system[/i] because it receives abundant energy from outside itself. The 2nd Law ONLY applies to closed systems[/i].........'

.........and then cannot name even ONE naturally occurring closed system.
0 Replies
 
TheCorrectResponse
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 11:25 am
Name one ARTIFICIALLY closed system. There ain't no such thing. A system is open or closed by the definition of its parameters.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 11:49 am
Now you're catching on, TCR.
0 Replies
 
TheCorrectResponse
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 11:56 am
No I actually caught on in sophomore thermodynamics class in college over 25 years ago. But thank's for your concern. As I know you are now going to say you have been saying that all the time. Even though a few weeks back I posted three artificial "closed systems" and you NEVER SAID a word about my choices. Laughing

By the way if you look back at MY posts you'll see I've made this same point numerous times.

P.S. Why has everyone stopped playing with you?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 12:35 pm
real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
I've objected to the way the law is selectively applied by many evolutionists.


HOW is it selectively applied again?


When an evolutionist says 'You see, Real Life, the Earth is an open system[/i] because it receives abundant energy from outside itself. The 2nd Law ONLY applies to closed systems[/i].........'

.........and then cannot name even ONE naturally occurring closed system.


And WHO is saying this?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 01:22 pm
real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Do you agree that the rotation of the earth is slowing down, ros?

I don't know. I haven't looked into it.
Do you think that if the earth is slowing now that it was slowing before?


Yes.

rosborne979 wrote:
If it was slowing before, do you think it was slowing at the same rate?


Not necessarily.

rosborne979 wrote:
Do you think the earth's rotation ever speeds up for any reason?


Unlikely.

rosborne979 wrote:
Do you think that there are events which change its rotation in various ways and in varying degrees?


It's possible.


Earthquake Affects Earth's Rotation.

Given the obvious variability of the Earth's rotation, do you think that extrapolating the present spin decay back in time, is a reliable method of determining the earth's age?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 05:19 pm
maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
I've objected to the way the law is selectively applied by many evolutionists.


HOW is it selectively applied again?


When an evolutionist says 'You see, Real Life, the Earth is an open system[/i] because it receives abundant energy from outside itself. The 2nd Law ONLY applies to closed systems[/i].........'

.........and then cannot name even ONE naturally occurring closed system.


And WHO is saying this?


No doubt. Who is saying this?

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 04:30 pm
So, did we ever get any proof for creationism? That was the whole point of this thread.

If I remember correctly, BadDog was the only one who was even honest enough to float his opinion (basically, that anything beautiful or amazing that moves him emotionally proves the existence of god). Of course, "God" isn't the same thing as Creationism, but that's as close as we've gotten so far. Putting aside for the moment the fact that most of us don't consider emotional intensity as "proof" of anything, at least we had something to work with for a moment there.

Maybe we should reduce the demands of the thread a bit and ask for mere evidence, rather than proof.

Anyone? Is there anything in the physical world which shows evidence for Creationism?

RL likes to tell us the evidence can be interpreted differently to support different conclusions. But when asked repeatedly to give us an example of a piece of evidence which somehow indicates a creation event, he never replies (what a surprise).
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 07:50 am
Evidence indicates that all humans are recently descended from the same line.

We may argue about the date, but it is certainly MUCH more recent than the standard evolutionary theory will allow, isn't it?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 08:38 am
real life wrote:
Evidence indicates that all humans are recently descended from the same line.

We may argue about the date, but it is certainly MUCH more recent than the standard evolutionary theory will allow, isn't it?


What evidence?

What evidence do you have that supports your statement the timeline for evolution is wrong?

You have never given any credible evidence to support the Biblical creation story.

You have never given any evidence to support the sun standing still for a day.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 10:15 am
xingu wrote:
real life wrote:
Evidence indicates that all humans are recently descended from the same line.

We may argue about the date, but it is certainly MUCH more recent than the standard evolutionary theory will allow, isn't it?


What evidence?


Some background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 10:35 am
real life wrote:
xingu wrote:
real life wrote:
Evidence indicates that all humans are recently descended from the same line.

We may argue about the date, but it is certainly MUCH more recent than the standard evolutionary theory will allow, isn't it?


What evidence?


Some background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve


So this tells us the Mitochondrial Eve is at least 140,000 to 200,000 years old.

So?
0 Replies
 
IFeelFree
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 01:34 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
So, did we ever get any proof for creationism? That was the whole point of this thread.

I don't believe in creationism. However, one question we could ask, is there anyway that God could influence natural events without violating known scientific laws? In other words, if someone proposes that there is a divine power that is responsible for the appearance of man and other creatures, can that be reconciled with the known laws of nature? An interesting argument might be that mutations could be guided by a divine influence, the Holy Spirit, pure consciousness, call it what you will. Since physics allows for a certain degree of uncertainty due to such things as the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics and non-linear dynamics with extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, it is conceivable that an "unseen hand" could guide events at a very subtle level (such as "random" mutations) and result in the creation of life forms over times scales that would not appear to be possible otherwise. I'm not saying that I believe this. I'm just saying it is a plausible argument. As I said, I don't believe in creationism, as it disagrees with the known scientific evidence. What do you think?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/27/2026 at 05:20:50