Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist model
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5952
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 50 of 242 (446203)
01-05-2008 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by tesla
01-05-2008 3:22 AM


What kind of lying fraking idiot are you?
If you have a creation model then simply present it!
If you have to admit that there is no such thing as a creation model, then simply admit the fact!
Heiland schei verflucht doch mal! What is wrong with you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by tesla, posted 01-05-2008 3:22 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by tesla, posted 01-05-2008 8:49 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5952
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 154 of 242 (447978)
01-11-2008 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by ramoss
01-11-2008 12:27 PM


Re: my creation model
Creationists tend to relegate all those other creation traditions to the "evolution model". The late Dr. Henry Morris of the ICR specifically stated that the "evolution model" included most of the world's religions, both ancient and modern.

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by ramoss, posted 01-11-2008 12:27 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024