Feed on Posts or Comments 24 May 2018

Christianity &Islam Thomas on 08 Nov 2009 12:10 am

Creation in the 21st Century

In this documentary, Dr. Carl Baugh of the Creation Evidence Museum in Glenrose, Texas explains why we should believe in creationism.

This display makes a major statement that we are going to emphasize during this program, but let me build a foundation for you. The title of the program is Flying Wonders, in contradistinction to a graphic description of this age prophetically described in the Biblical record as all deceivableness and lying wonders. We are in every direction propagandized by a concept that is in essence a lying wonder.

What am I talking about? When we examine the fossil record, when we examine the current display of splendor throughout the heavens, throughout earth, from the butterflies, to the wonderful construction of the bombardier beetle, the intelligence of the bees, the graphic display taken only hours before this telecast of a bee in activity with some special grapple hooks which I will describe a bit later, paralleled specifically in the fossil record with the very same apparatus, when we view all of this, it is obvious that there has to be a designer to all of this. There has to be a designer with the entire cosmos in mind.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

14 Responses to “Creation in the 21st Century”

  1. on 09 Nov 2009 at 9:59 pm 1.Bishop said …

    There is a central problem that the antigod advocates refuse to address with any sort of valid argument. A majority of in individuals believe a creator is involved in our existence. Why? Because there is clear-cut design in creation. As much as the antigod crowd would like to ignore that reality away doesn’t fly. It is reality and the antigod crowd just doesn’t want to deal with it other than to attempt to argue design is not REALLY evident.

    I need to run down to the beach and see if a 65 GTO has washed up on shore.


  2. on 10 Nov 2009 at 8:57 pm 2.yup said …

    I applaud your logic there bishop. I guess the world was really flat a few thousand years ago. I mean, back then the majority of individuals alive believed it so it HAD to be.

  3. on 10 Nov 2009 at 9:40 pm 3.Bishop said …

    I like it, thanks. A majority of individuals believe that peace is also best for mankind. I agree with the majority on that one too yup. Lets see, other historical beliefs that follow include but not limited to plants need water, man needs oxygen, ducks can float and gravity causes things to fall.

  4. on 10 Nov 2009 at 11:26 pm 4.AntiRoss said …

    False analogies Bishop. A weak argument that is not convincing.
    Nor do you have any convincing real evidence of design. But, if you want to go there, shall we list some examples of how poor much of the design is, whether complex or not.
    Cough – oops, sorry, nearly choked to death there trying to swallow and breathe at the same time…

  5. on 11 Nov 2009 at 5:02 pm 5.Bishop said …

    Well, how are the analogies false? You must be joking about no evidence of design. Have you checked on the complexity of a cell lately? How about the human brain or the Integumentary system? Please, you try too hard to deceive yourself. I suppose the Hoover Dam has not design either- oops sprung a leak!

    Are you in the habit of swallowing and breathing at the same time? You might want to get your epiglottis checked out.

  6. on 11 Nov 2009 at 9:24 pm 6.yup said …

    that’s not evidence. Your arguing from ignorance. First you appeal to the majority then you argue from ignorance. How many more logical fallacies are you going to use?

  7. on 11 Nov 2009 at 10:57 pm 7.Bishop said …

    There is clear-cut design in creation. I even provided examples. Prove me wrong and enough with trivial accusations that lack any merit.

    Appeal to majority supposes that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. I never made the claim X was was true due to a majority. I claim a majority did believe in X and stated why they believe X.
    I never make the claim their belief makes X true. I’m not sure if your ignorance is purposeful, legitimate or maybe just simply deceitful.

  8. on 11 Nov 2009 at 11:04 pm 8.AntiRoss said …

    Well, Bishop, in all honesty, I haven’t adhered to the classic definition of false analogy, but was hoping to point out that you can’t throw out common truths like plants need water etc. as valid reasons to accept that all, or even most of the things that seem obvious are true. Especially those which people believed before we knew much at all.

    Your Hoover Dam example is another one. The analogy is weak because the dam obviously didn’t evolve. It had no parents or ancestors that reproduced over millennia to provide better and better dams for the survival of its genes. We did evolve. There is evidence.

    Millions of us don’t find your ‘design is obvious’ stance to be a convincing one. It actually sounds more like you are overawed by the complexity of it all and therefore attribute it to a designer. Also, your premise seems to be rooted in religion – not something known to accept new facts or evidence with open arms…

    Evidence does not mean one’s own incredulity. Remember that cells have been evolving for over three billion years.

    And all of the flaws in our design are excellent evidence exactly counter to some intelligence tweaking our DNA at opportune times when we’re not looking.

  9. on 12 Nov 2009 at 1:36 am 9.Bishop said …

    We agree AntiRoss the Hoover Dam did not evolve. One reason is because of its complex design which is not nearly as complex as the systems I outline. Somehow you would have us believe the complex systems we study do not have design although the Hoover Dam does? Sorry, you make no sense and you are completely illogical.

    Yes, I am in awe of creation and if you are not you should study a little more. It is amazing and when I seen complexity, intelligence and design I don’t ignore the obvious in order to fulfill some silly preconception.

    “Millions of us don’t find your ‘design is obvious’ stance to be a convincing one.”

    An appeal to the multitude AntiRoss? You should know better.

  10. on 12 Nov 2009 at 5:16 am 10.AntiRoss said …

    Got me right back on the multitude bit. Fair enough.

    In any case, I do ‘study a bit more’, Bishop, all the time, and, like you, am perfectly capable of awe and wonder and appreciation and fascination.
    The point I wish to make, though, is that design is not obvious, nor is it evident. It only seems like that to the human mind. And, by the way, ‘design’ is the actual preconception, as you put it, although it is not a silly one, just normal. But what is ‘obvious’ is not always true. Just because it’s complex does not mean there is a designer.

    In fact, I personally think that it is even more awe-inspiring to accept life without the supernatural. On this we disagree.

    On the evidence bit, I submit that you are flat out wrong because no one has yet found any evidence of any intelligent intervention, just natural causes. Anything else has been conjecture.
    When you speak of seeing complexity, intelligence and design, I really think that you are sticking the last two aspects in there due to a religious bias.

  11. on 12 Nov 2009 at 7:55 pm 11.Bishop said …

    “design is not obvious, nor is it evident. It only seems like that to the human mind.”

    The human mind is all I have. I thought that was all scientist had in the arsenal. I not sure what else I could process this information with. Actually, I remain quite surprised anyone could deny complexity, information (code) and design exists. It is quite clear.

  12. on 12 Nov 2009 at 11:53 pm 12.AntiRoss said …

    At least we agree on two important points Bishop. There is complexity and there is a genetic code. We definitely differ on the source of those things though.

    The bit about the human mind was that we seek patterns and explanations for everything. We even see patterns where there are none. That’s all.
    Just implying that many answers are counterintuitive to our earlier simpler explanations.

  13. on 13 Nov 2009 at 12:19 am 13.Not a bishop said …

    Even if I were to believe design had taken place, nobody could make a case for it being intelligent.

    As AntiRoss mentioned, why do my breathing and swallowing tubes intersect? That’s a really dumb idea.

    Why do flightless birds have useless wings? That’s pointless.

    My does giving birth hurt so much? Oh yeah, the apple. Nevermind.

    But why do many species without the ability to see have eyes? What a waste of matter and energy!

    Why do sharks need to stay in motion to breathe? That’s a torturous life to design for something! What happened to a day of rest?

    What are my testicles doing dangling around down there where they can be easily injured? That’s not intelligent design, that’s really cruel.

    I’ve got more if you want them.

    Also, when you compared the vast, naturally evolving, complexity of nature with the Hoover Dam, my brain exploded. I’m dead now.

  14. on 13 Nov 2009 at 3:10 pm 14.Bishop said …

    Not a bishop otherwise known a Pawn,

    “As AntiRoss mentioned, why do my breathing and swallowing tubes intersect?”

    I actually think it is quite en-genius, The flap providing a mechanism for multitasking. I wonder how many poor saps had to die with food and water in their lungs before natural selection got it right? No, obviously design incorporated there.

    “Why do flightless birds have useless wings? That’s pointless.”

    Many of the flightless birds do use their wings to help with travel. They may not fly but they do help with quick movement.

    “Why do sharks need to stay in motion to breathe? That’s a torturous life to design for something! What happened to a day of rest?”

    lol, not for the shark. It is a natural act. Maybe you have spoken to a shark that is unhappy?

    “What are my testicles doing dangling around down there where they can be easily injured?”

    Would you rather have them around your chin? Do a little reading, you will find that is actually a well designed location. I would advise buying a cup if you are getting blasted in the package that often or just leave that gal alone.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply