Who Created the Creator?

"No, you don't rely on science at all, and neither does Creation "Science"."
--If I relied on miracles, or supernatural interventions, it wouldn't be called creation science. You have obviously been sucked into the skeptics view of creation science, they don't even have the slightest clue on how we view evidence, and scientific observations. (creationism and creation science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com). I hope you havent been sucked into that material, the nicest thing I can say about what they have typed up there is, hogwash."The problem here is that you don't know how to tell the difference between real science and pseudoscience."
--Unfortunatelly you have not been able to give me anything that would prove it to be pseudoscience."Real science NEVER assumes it can know ahead of time what it must find to fit a predetermined outcome, yet Creationism does just that."
--We do pretty much exactly what evolutionists will do, we both have a model, we say, well the Flood happend, Creation happend 6000 years ago, All the kinds of animals were on the ark, etc. The bible doesn't give mechenism, it give us a foundational model, which I would have to say has never been refuted as False. Evolutionists, will say well the earth is 4.5 billion years old, The Geologic column represents eons of time, and things evolve from one kind of organism to another kind of organism given time, simple to complex, given millions of years."For goodness sake, a Scientific Theory of Creation, complete with confirming evidence, testable hypothese, and potential falsifications, doesn't even exist."
--And yet you can't point out an example that refutes it as it still stands."In real science, there are no sacred cows. Every single theory or bit of evidence is available to revisit and possibly reject or revise in the light of new, more reliable evidence. (Emphasis on the "more reliable")"
--There is no such thing as 'more reliable' evidence. Evidence is evidence, and the evidence must comply with the theory, as it does with what the Creation model says. We don't have any 'sacred cows' as I would seem to think you are illuding to supernatural interference in the natural laws of science. We use no such thing accept as the creation of the universe 6000 years ago."Creationism, on the other hand, holds certain
things to be absolute, no matter what. This is as unscientific as it gets!"
--We don't hold anything to be absolute 'no matter what'. We take the basic model as it has been constructed in Genesis, realize its feasability (I would challenge anyone on any chapter). It suplies the model, we suply the mechenism, the scientific cause or reason for an act that has taken place in Genesis, and it complies. If Creation science was truely what you propose it to be, I would rather be a Flash Animator, or Graphic designer, being one of my other interests, science is what I love, and I find it fascinating on how an ancient book can be so scientifical accurate."Please read the following sites. The first explains what science is and how it is done, and the second deals with Creation "science" and why it is pseudoscience. http://www.skepdic.com/science.html
http://www.skepdic.com/creation.html
--I can safely say that the way skeptic.com illudes to creation science is nothing short of a lie, or an act of idiocy in the least. They somehow get the Idea that we just say 'Goddidit' for everything."I got the idea from what you wrote in message #14 of this thread.TrueCreation:"I find it odd how Biblical Creationists can have successfully been able to use the same stories over and over again and find nothing that will change it. Evolution is greatly being fashioned and patched up all the time. I believe, in regard to the evidence."You characterized the fact that scientific theories may change as needing to be "fashioned and patched up all the time", implying that this was a sign of weakness compared to Creationist's unchanging beliefs.
--Creationists have never left their same model, 6000 years old for creation, a Global Flood, fountains of the deep, 40 days of rain, 2by2, 7 of some, 900 years of living, etc. Theories change all the time, the Creation model according to scripture doesn't change and has not been refuted, there always seems to be explination. The basic model of Evolution changes, or there are many Foundational theories for evolution, The only thing that doesn't change is the theory that Evolution happend, the Geologic Column represents time periods, etc. The basic fundementals.Actually, I don't think that you, specifically ignore evidence. I think that you probably just haven't exactly sought out much in the way of evidence from Biology yourself, so you don't know it is being ignored by the authors of the articles at the religious sites you frequent.
--I will say that I am still in the process of new information, in any scientific subject, who isn't? To my knowledge I just have not found anything that really contributes to a falsification, or a fatal blow to absolutely anything of the basic creation model, though theories on how things happned can be refuted, this is the process of science, advancement, and knowledge. I don't know too much about biology, I look toward a PhD in either Biology, Geology, or Astronomy-Astrophysics, whichever I find my interest the strongest, I am looking toward Biology. When I find information such as on sites like AiG, ICR, or other creationist sites, I will use it, experiment with it, see what people think of it, and see if it is logical. Thus, I look forward to seeing what people such as yourself think of the specifics, being so quick to critisize the aspects of the article and bring it into discussion. There is always going to be those little messups, discrdited theories, sometimes misinformations, this happens frequently on both sides, I have seen it happen many times more with Evolutionary theories, but I will look at their messups mroe frequently, I freely admit. Either way it makes no relevance to creation science being pseudoscience."That's the only one? Have you forgotten our discussion of ostriches, pterosaurs, grass and sucessive fossil forests of flowering trees, and insects? What about trilobites and crabs? Whyy don't we find those two species together, as they are of similar densities, both live on the ocean floor, and have similar mobility?"
--That isn't the only one but it would be the one that I am in the midst of looking up now. pterosaurs is a good one also, there are many things to consider with them, you wouldn't happen to know a site where you could get a good amount of information like just talking about pterosaurs would you? What was the relevance of the question about ostriches, and what strata are crabs and trilobites found, being the problem of the question."No, Creation "science" does't use the same basic models as science. Creation "science" isn't scientific, because it violates some of the basic tenets of science as I explained a bit about above, and the links I provided will explain further."
--No where in your links did I find a problem with Creation Science, being they talk of some unheard of science which of course would not be science if it be true. They think we say 'Goddidit' for everything and they simply don't know what they are talking about. Creation science is science using a Biblical model as foundation and science supports it. Pick an aspect of our foundational model, the biblical 'model' not mechenism, and try to refute it using science and I can support it with known science."But uoi haven't presented much evidence for your claims at all! You do a lot of "The insects would have survived on floating logs". That is hardly evidence. That is pure conjecture."
--Considering insects floating on logs, they could have floated on rafts of matted vegetation, driftwood, pumice and the like. The evidence? Insects are very light, this is what you see happening in many large floods, insects pile on lumps of vegitation. In the worldwide Flood there would hundreds of square miles of this vegetation. Take a Tree and throw it out in the middle of a lake, and then take tons of insects and pour them all over the tree, whether their already on the tree or not they will get on their and they will stay alive for a couple weeks, this being a short time for the flood but this is only one tree or busch."Why? Isn't the nature of faith that one believes, no matter what? It seems a weak sort of faith that needs proof. Thomas needed evidence of Jesus being risen from the dead, and he was shamed because of his lack of faith."
--That is my point, a faith is something that requires a belief, regardless of proof, the only area that requires my faith is the resurection, and the beginning creation (the origin of life, not the evolution). I don't need proof for either of those things, but I do need to know that the other aspects are feasable, if Noahs ark was 5sq Ft I would have trouble believing that there was noah's ark. I don't need evidence of Jesus Raising from the dead, because THAT is my faith, the origin of life by God speaking and we were created that is my faith. I don't require blind faith to believe much of any other aspect of Genesis, being as it is scientifically accurate, and feasable."Are you a "Doubting Thomas", needing proof to believe? If not, then why go into this business of using science to bolster your faith?"
--Because it isn't my faith that I am using science to prove or give evidence of. The supernatural is not included in Creation science. The supernatural is my faith."I accept the evidence for the Theory of Evolution the same way I accept the evidence of a Heliocentric Solar System, the Germ Theory of Disease, or the Atomic Theory of Matter. If we were to find a human fossil in the same layer as a dinosaur fossil, the ToE, as it stands now, would be falsified for me. If radiometric dating methods all began showing wildly different dates for rocks instead of agreeing, that would also be a falsification. I would have to change, which wold be fin, as I do not hold science as a faith or belief in a religious fashion."
--Radimetric dating methods do give wide ranges of dates, but they arent going to publish the wild dates, they will publish the one most accurate. To say you believe the ToE is as believable as a sun in the center of a solar system is taking quite the leap of faith. We cannot observe live evolving, there is no definant proof that the geologic column means geologic time. The KBS tough (if thats how you spell it) was dated over 212 million years old, untill they found a human skull under it, so they redated it to 12 million years old. That date would have never been changed if it weren't for that skull."Tell me, what would falsify Creationism for you?"
--The earth is millions/billions of years old as opposed to 6000.
--Life did without a doubt evolve.
--Noah's Flood was impossible.Creation "science" is not scientific, as the links I provide above will explain to you. Creation "science" is metapysics and religion dressed in a lab coat, holding a beaker. It uses the trappings of science, but it lacks the methodology, basic tennets, and error-correcting systems of real science."
--Creation science is no such thing, it is pure science, no methodology, not theology, no philosophy, the supernatural is not included as I explained above. I guess I should say Im not going to spend 4 hours reading the court decision now."The age of the Earth is derived from many different lines of evidence."
--What evidence? Display it in the 'Dating Methods contrevorsey' Topic."Please provide some evidence that all of the various dating methods are inaccurate."
--It looks to only talk of Radiometric dating."Wait a minute. YOU have made very specific factual claims about how things happened with the Flood, yet none of us were there to see it. You have talked about the evidence LEFT BEHIND as pointing to a worldwide flood. This inicates that you will accept evidence that there were NO eyewitnesses to."
--I make specific claims to explain what could have possibly been the logical reason it is the way it is. Someone was there to see it, and it is written in a book called Genesis, which is where our model comes from, not or mechenism."So, is it that you will only accept evidence that agrees with how you want things to be, and will ignore any evidence that contradicts your preferred evidence?"
--No but every line of evidence I have seen through always has an explination that points to something else that fits our model greatly."Are autopsies worthless if nobody saw the person die? Can no witnessless crimes EVER be solved?"
--Autopsies aren't wortheless, the crime can be solved to a degree, but it cannot be known as a 'fact'. The evidence can simply be overwhelming, though it is always possible that someone was framed. Or what they are looking at could mean something else."You accept that speciation occurs??"
--Ofcourse, I would have to be well pretty much 'stupid' to say the least if I didn't accept that. If I didn't accept speciation, I would have hundreds of problems with the Creationists theories, especially including Noahs ark and the veriety we see today, seeing there were only 2/7 animals of each 'kind' onboard the ark."If all of the different dating methods are ALL wrong, why are they worng in such a way as to agree with each other?"
--Rocks or whatever it is that you wan't dated get dated numerous times before they can get an 'accurate' date. There are many assumptions thrown into dating methods."What mechanism prevents many small changes from accumulating?"
--Many small 'changes' can accumulate, but these changes would more accurately be labled 'devolving' such as the cheetah, the cheetah is most likely in the shallow end of the gene pool, gone as far as it can go. Now when more changes start happening to it, it is going to be in huge trouble, on the midst of extinction possibly. You can have many many small changes happen, but your organism is only going to get worse and worse. There were probley no chuahwa's 500 years ago, they are in the shallow end of the gene pool. Could you think? All that work to produce a perfectly useless dog. Any more variation happening in them isn't going to be too good.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-31-2001]

Let me begin by saying Mister Pramboli's challenge, though fair in question, strays a good ways from any relevant discussion of creation and evolution. Never the less, it should be addressed. I would first like to point out an interesting pattern i have observed throughout the discussion. It seems to me that various arguments have been attempted to be made for the case of a personal God and have in turn been refuted by Mister Pramboli's scenario. That is,we must discuss how God could be personal before space and time on the presupposition that we have an idea of God's "environment" before space and time. This "environment" is described as condition of God existing without the universe. In this condition we cannot assign personality to God because there is nothing from which He can be distinguished. I suppose this is possible, but it is not all that is possible. There is more than the universe bound by space and time by which God can distinguish himself. Heaven, after all, holds no similarities to our current universe which is regulated and defined by physical laws, and yet it is a place God distinguishes Himself as God in. To say this or that is the sort of condition God existed in before space and time is completely worthless. In a since, Mister Pramboli has set up the definitions and we must conform to them. We are finite beings with a limited comprehension of even our own universe. So let us not pretend that we understand the conditions of an ad infinitum existence.Now then, I would also like to point out a significant piece of Truth from the Bible revealing to us yet another incredible aspect of God's multifaceted character.Genesis chapter 1, vs. 1 and 2
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.John chapter 1, vs. 1
In the beginning was the Word and the Word became flesh, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.Regardless of God's pre-universal condition we see that He was not a singularly undistinguished force. On the contrary, God is revealed to us in three Revelations (I cannot call them persons): God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Without this revelation I admit I would have to relinquish any ideas of logically assigning a personality to God. But I need not do this. God revealed in three unique parts is a God that can quite easily and logically be made personal. Form the very beginning there were two revalations for God the Father to distinguish himself in contrast to. The Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ. He is not Them and They are not Him and yet they are completely unified as God. Like wise, the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ were distinguished in contrast to each other respectively. And so a personality flowers. Suppose we have three individual characters of considerable musical talent. All three play a different instrument, say the violin, viola and the cello. All three play beautifully united under one beautiful song. They create this beautiful harmonious song in an amazing display of infinite improvisation, each one adding their own perfect piece to the whole of the song. Let us even place these brilliant musicians within Mister Pramboli's God Void. Even there I think one would be hard pressed to argue the song is impersonal. Even in the God Void I think it would be hopeless to argue that each musician's unique part in the harmonious whole was played with little thought or care or even love. In fact, one might agree that if the personality and love for the song was removed from the player's characters then the song would collapse. Harmony would cease and the song would die.In much the same way creation would cease to exist if God ceased to be personal. We cannot leave creation out of the question. On the contrary, that is like taking the song from the musicians. If that is done then I must agree with Mr. Pramboli that there is no real reason to assign additional attributes to God. But in the same way the song distinguishes the musicians, so creation defines God for finite beings. As the foundations of the Naturalistic Philosophy that upholds impersonality collapse, we are forced to finally look at the fingerprints God left of Himself throughout creation. Science has kept God out for a long time but its philosophy is weakening. Biology's iron grip on the evolutionary theory weakens in the face of the insurmountable gap between information and matter. Many cosmologists have done away with the possibility of chance to explain away universal origins and fundamental laws. Creations plan, and the personality that it implies, is finally beginning to be recognized in science. Open minded leaders like Phillip Johnson have sparked the advent of Intelligent Design, a research program based on the fact that God is personal and had an Intelligent Design in mind with the creation of the universe.Creation cannot and will not be left out of any discussion of God's personality. His personality, His image, has been poured into us. Take hope in that.

quote:

---

TrueCreation: The KBS tough (if thats how you spell it) was dated over 212 million years old, untill they found a human skull under it, so they redated it to 12 million years old. That date would have never been changed if it weren't for that skull.

---

My guess is that your "tough" is.f "tuff"; solidified volcanic ash. American's pronounce it "tough", the British pronounce it "toof". I would be interest in hearing more about this 212 vs. 12 million year old situation.

quote:

---

Tell me, what would falsify Creationism for you?"
--The earth is millions/billions of years old as opposed to 6000.
--Life did without a doubt evolve.
--Noah's Flood was impossible.

---

There are an abundunce of people who highly believe the above three items are true, and still believe in a divine creation or the posibility of a divine creation.You're being so confident that you understand God and his actions, that you are precluding that he may have gone about things in a different way.Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

"My guess is that your "tough" is.f "tuff"; solidified volcanic ash. American's pronounce it "tough", the British pronounce it "toof". I would be interest in hearing more about this 212 vs. 12 million year old situation."
--Yes it is tuff thanx. Here is a clip from an article on drdino.com and also another place I found somewhere on the internet here--->Problems with Lucy and Skull 1470"For years the KBS tuff, named for Kay Behrensmeyer, was dated using Potassium Argon (K-Ar) at 212-230 Million years. See Nature, April 18, 197, p. 226. Then skull #KNM-ER 1470 was found (in 1972) under the KBS tuff by Richard Leakey. It looks like modern humans but was dated at 2.9 million years old. Since a 2.9 million year old skull cannot logically be under a lava flow 212 million years old many immediately saw the dilemma. If the skull had not been found no one would have suspected the 212 million year dates as being wrong. Later, 10 different samples were taken from the KBS tuff and were dated as being .52- 2.64 Million years old. (way down from 212 million. Even the new "dates" show a 500% error!) Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow, pp. 247-266""There are an abundunce of people who highly believe the above three items are true, and still believe in a divine creation or the posibility of a divine creation."
--I agree, there are an abundence of people that will believe this and also believe in a divine creation, in 99% of the people I have ever talked to that believe this, simply have no knowledge of the creation and evolution interperetations, and most of them don't even know there was a 'creation science' or a scientific view of the bible. I believe what I believe because I am simply amazed at how an ancient book could be so flawless and accurate scientifically."You're being so confident that you understand God and his actions, that you are precluding that he may have gone about things in a different way."
--Its the Biblical God is who I understand because he said it himself, he wants a personal relationship with me and all of us. And it is his inspired book that tells gives us the accounts of genesis, and nothing in it has ever been disproven, rather it has been proven right by the people who seek disprovement. He supplies us the mechenism, we simply say, Hey, he could have done it this way and it has evidence and is entirely possible, no question, theories change, the foundational model for creationism, doesn't.-----------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-08-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-08-2002]

quote:

---

"For years the KBS tuff, named for Kay Behrensmeyer, was dated using Potassium Argon (K-Ar) at 212-230 Million years. See Nature, April 18, 197, p. 226. Then skull #KNM-ER 1470 was found (in 1972) under the KBS tuff by Richard Leakey. It looks like modern humans but was dated at 2.9 million years old. Since a 2.9 million year old skull cannot logically be under a lava flow 212 million years old many immediately saw the dilemma. If the skull had not been found no one would have suspected the 212 million year dates as being wrong. Later, 10 different samples were taken from the KBS tuff and were dated as being .52- 2.64 Million years old. (way down from 212 million. Even the new "dates" show a 500% error!) Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow, pp. 247-266"

---

For what it's worth, here's the first page of the Google "KBS tuff" search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22KBS+tuff%22&btnG=Google+SearchObviously, what we are facing here is the situation of either the sample and/or the methodology being flawed.Science was faced with two pieces of conflicting data - one piece had to be wrong, and it was decided that the isotopic date was bad. An example of the scientific method correcting errors. This in no way means that all, or even most isotopic dates are bad.Perhaps this KBS tuff situation deserves a topic of it's own.Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

I think his mother and father probably created him ;-) Newbie here! A priest once told me that the bible makes reference to god's wife has anyone else heard about that? Maybe if god has a wife he has parents too.
Greg

---

"He that will not reason is a fool" W.D.

Then the same would apply for both Hawking's imaginary time and the 5 dimensional space in the Ekpyrotic theory.

This is a very interesting forum.Evolution or creation or both? (Is the genetic code a computer program? More about this later?)I just want to mention a few mysteries that I think are still unsolved.1. The first appearance of life or how did life originate. ( remember even the great
Francis Crick played with the idea of an extraterrestrial origin of life)2. The appearance of the first sexually reproductive organisms, especially in the animal kingdom. sperms and ova
are very vulnerable. In plants perhaps easier to explain, pollens are much less vulnerable than sperms.
A male and female had to originate with each others lifetime at a close distance.
The same applies when a new animal specie evolve.3. How does a new animal specie evolve.4. Why is triploid cells and organisms possible in the plant but not the animal kingdom?
Why can monoploids survive extended periods of time in the plant kingdom? Monoploids (sperms
and ova) are exceptionally vulnerable and short lived in the animal kingdom.5. Stem cells and cell differentiation6. The remarkable similarities between binary code and genetic code. Genetic code are just
as capable of controlling computer hardware as is binary code.Was a mindless programmer (Mother Nature) responsible for life? If yes, are binary code
capable of same achievements? It even has a head start, being the creation of intelligence.

This post is not on the topic of this thread. Please choose your thread to post in more carefully or propose a new topic. Thanks.

---

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

​

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

​

Other useful links:

​

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

I don't think so. A better definition would be "God (AKA The Lord, Jehovah, Yaweh, Jesus Christ, The Holy Ghost, etc.) : A mythical being, originally the tribal deity of the Hebrews but since adopted by many people in many parts of the world as their main mythic figure."

And the unsophisticated respondent could simply say, "Well. my God doesn't, because he is 'outside' time (whatever that means), or, in other words, "My God doesn't require a cause like everything else because in any other case my preconceived ideas don't work". In either case, all you're doing is engaging in the fallacy of special pleading. In other words, saying "Everything requires a cause, except God" withoutshowing cause why the exception is valid, and merely defining god so as to form the exception isn't going to cut it.

The most recent replies have either been off-topic or replies to very old messages (or both).This is a "Great Debate" topic whose origin preceded the establishment that the forum is for "one-on-one" debate.Rather than move the topic, I've decided it best just to close it.Adminnemooseus

---