What Have Creationists Said That's True? (ritual, Creator, Darwin, mystic)

[Sunstone]

What, if anything, have creationists said that's true?

[angellous_evangellous]

Whatever they parrot from people that's correct and uncorrupted by creationism.

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

I Guess Your Assuming here, that MATERIALISTS have some sort of handle on Absolute Truth Eh ? It is Too Laugh

Materialist scientists assert that the entire cosmos has been expanding since the Big Bang and before this , there was NOTHING ( no time, no space, no matter, no mind etc ) . They also assert that the physical cosmos is all that exists. So IF materiality is all that there is ? and IF all of this, is in a constant state of flux ? How can a materialist science ever claim to know the ABSOLUTE TRUTH about anything ???
Sorry, that wasn’t quite your original question was it ?

OK You asked : ‘ What have Creationists said that is true ?’

Well, I’d like to hear YOUR definition of Creationist + truth.

BUT For the record, I WOULD label myself a ‘ Creationist’. However, by this, I only mean :

I do NOT believe - based on the best available scientific evidence/ rational analysis - that our cosmos was an accident ( Ergo , it appears to be the product of a purposeful and creative Intelligence/ Beneficence of an immeasurably high order & one which must transcend all space and time, in order to have authored the Big Bang/ An Anthropic Universe etcetera )

I don’t believe that the appearance of sentient life could have been an accident either. Mathematically speaking, even the probability for the spontaneous/blind arranging of all the ‘ left handed’ amino acids necessary for a single functioning protein, appears vanishingly small. How then could we go on to ‘ spontaneously’ arrive at RNA/ DNA ( much less living cells ) ?

DNA/RNA is nothing less than an ‘ informational code or symbolic language.’ Name me a comparably complex code, or any code at all, which was not the brainchild of an Intelligent Mind or Minds ?


Darwinism, DNA & ‘ Informational Entropy ’

Believing in Darwinism, by random mutation , even if honed by Natural Selection, could be likened to believing that a simple Morse Code signal, from the early 1900's, could randomly evolve into a modern Tv program. If this magically happened, Natural selection could take over, since most people today prefer watching TV to deciphering Morse Code. But without being underpinned by some sort of Intelligent Agent/ Creator this scenario would be strictly impossible. All the potential audience would ever get would be meaningless electromagnetic snow/ static.

Information always ALWAYS degrades over time, if subject to the forces of chaos. It never NEVER randomly increases in complexity/ informational carrying capacity , unless acted upon by an Intelligent Agent. DNA is no different. It too, is an informational code. Ergo, the same rules apply. To Reiterate : DNA MIGHT AS WELL BE A MESSAGE FROM ON HIGH, SENT BY DIVINITY !

Believing in Darwinism, rather than a purposeful Creation/ Creator, requires that I subscribe to what amounts to Make Believe/ Myth. I refuse to do that. Just as I conscientiously refuse to subscribe to that fear based / ‘ hell fire’ claptrap spouted by religious zealots promulgating ultra-literalist interpretations of wholly manmade religious scriptures ( The Bible , for example , is full of both contradictions as well as historical errors, and even contains logical impossibilities. Which is not to say that it doesn't contain any mystical insights. It believe it does - as do many venerated scriptures from all manner of religious traditions IMO - but the point is that no mere book authored by Man, could ever contain, the literal and inerrant word of God , again IMO )

To Darwinists/ Materialists/ Reductionist scientists I’m a heretic
To the followers of Mainstream Churches/ Mosques/ Synagogues etc...I’m a heretic too

Both Groups think they’ve got an ultra-accurate handle on : who /what God IS , or alternatively IS NOT.

( i ) One believes that the ‘ Creator’ is a myth ( without a shred of substantiation )
( ii ) The other believes in a godly Creator, but only in a peculiar flavor of Deity ( one which is almost always decidedly anthropomorphic and masculine in character ) as bests supports their equally dogmatic interpretations of reality ( again without a shred of substantiation )

My guess is that somewhere between the fundamentalist extremes of scientific atheism and religious orthodoxy there lies ‘ TRANSCENDENTAL TRUTH’


The Lines Of Longitude


No less a thinker than Albert Einstein declared, ‘ religion without science blind and science without religion lame.’ Sir Francis Bacon ( 1561- 1626 ) similarly insisted that : " a little science estranges a man from god, a lot of science brings him back."

I don’t know who said this originally, but I also love this analogy :

‘ All the world’s religions ( and all the world’s sciences too - once science embraces its own deep-seated spirituality ) can be likened to the lines of longitude on the globe, appearing at first to wildly diverge, yet inevitably intersecting at the opposite pole.’

CHEERS ET AL

[Mestemia]

Sunstone,
Had to get him started again, didn't you?

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

I Guess Your Assuming here, that MATERIALISTS have some sort of handle on Absolute Truth Eh ? It is Too Laugh

Materialist scientists assert that the entire cosmos has been expanding since the Big Bang and before this , there was NOTHING ( no time, no space, no matter, no mind etc ) . They also assert that the physical cosmos is all that exists. So IF materiality is all that there is ? and IF all of this, is in a constant state of flux ? How can a materialist science ever claim to know the ABSOLUTE TRUTH about anything ???
Sorry, that wasn’t quite your original question was it ?

OK You asked : ‘ What have Creationists said that is true ?’

Well, I’d like to hear YOUR definition of Creationist + truth.

BUT For the record, I WOULD label myself a ‘ Creationist’. However, by this, I only mean :

I do NOT believe - based on the best available scientific evidence/ rational analysis - that our cosmos was an accident ( Ergo , it appears to be the product of a purposeful and creative Intelligence/ Beneficence of an immeasurably high order & one which must transcend all space and time, in order to have authored the Big Bang/ An Anthropic Universe etcetera )

I don’t believe that the appearance of sentient life could have been an accident either. Mathematically speaking, even the probability for the spontaneous/blind arranging of all the ‘ left handed’ amino acids necessary for a single functioning protein, appears vanishingly small. How then could we go on to ‘ spontaneously’ arrive at RNA/ DNA ( much less living cells ) ?

DNA/RNA is nothing less than an ‘ informational code or symbolic language.’ Name me a comparably complex code, or any code at all, which was not the brainchild of an Intelligent Mind or Minds ?


Darwinism, DNA & ‘ Informational Entropy ’

Believing in Darwinism, by random mutation , even if honed by Natural Selection, could be likened to believing that a simple Morse Code signal, from the early 1900's, could randomly evolve into a modern Tv program. If this magically happened, Natural selection could take over, since most people today prefer watching TV to deciphering Morse Code. But without being underpinned by some sort of Intelligent Agent/ Creator this scenario would be strictly impossible. All the potential audience would ever get would be meaningless electromagnetic snow/ static.

Information always ALWAYS degrades over time, if subject to the forces of chaos. It never NEVER randomly increases in complexity/ informational carrying capacity , unless acted upon by an Intelligent Agent. DNA is no different. It too, is an informational code. Ergo, the same rules apply. To Reiterate : DNA MIGHT AS WELL BE A MESSAGE FROM ON HIGH, SENT BY DIVINITY !

Believing in Darwinism, rather than a purposeful Creation/ Creator, requires that I subscribe to what amounts to Make Believe/ Myth. I refuse to do that. Just as I conscientiously refuse to subscribe to that fear based / ‘ hell fire’ claptrap spouted by religious zealots promulgating ultra-literalist interpretations of wholly manmade religious scriptures ( The Bible , for example , is full of both contradictions as well as historical errors, and even contains logical impossibilities. Which is not to say that it doesn't contain any mystical insights. It believe it does - as do many venerated scriptures from all manner of religious traditions IMO - but the point is that no mere book authored by Man, could ever contain, the literal and inerrant word of God , again IMO )

To Darwinists/ Materialists/ Reductionist scientists I’m a heretic
To the followers of Mainstream Churches/ Mosques/ Synagogues etc...I’m a heretic too

Both Groups think they’ve got an ultra-accurate handle on : who /what God IS , or alternatively IS NOT.

( i ) One believes that the ‘ Creator’ is a myth ( without a shred of substantiation )
( ii ) The other believes in a godly Creator, but only in a peculiar flavor of Deity ( one which is almost always decidedly anthropomorphic and masculine in character ) as bests supports their equally dogmatic interpretations of reality ( again without a shred of substantiation )

My guess is that somewhere between the fundamentalist extremes of scientific atheism and religious orthodoxy there lies ‘ TRANSCENDENTAL TRUTH’


The Lines Of Longitude


No less a thinker than Albert Einstein declared, ‘ religion without science blind and science without religion lame.’ Sir Francis Bacon ( 1561- 1626 ) similarly insisted that : " a little science estranges a man from god, a lot of science brings him back."

I don’t know who said this originally, but I also love this analogy :



CHEERS ET AL

So, ummm, what have Creationists said that's true?

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Mestemia

Sunstone,
Had to get him started again, didn't you?

Yikes!!!

[Mestemia]

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Colorado, USA
Gender: Posts: 21,886
Frubals: 1834446

You get to two million frubals, does that make you a DOUBLE whore?

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

I'm a self professed ' Creationist' ...to be a Creationist by my definition is to believe that :' Our Anthropic Cosmos could NOT be an accident.'

Can u prove that my statement is UNTRUE ??? Can u even provide evidence to the contrary ?