The speed of light, stars, and YEC?

[Statler Waldorf]

Stalter, just because Richard Dawkins said evolution is a complete 100% undeniable fact does not mean everyone who supports it believes the same thing. If someone on here makes a claim that they don't believe it can be known 100% then saying they think it is a reasonable possibility is definitely consistent and logical.

Sure but that’s not exactly what he said is it? He said that only “religious loons” would say such things. So my point was the Dawkins says such things and I doubt many believe he is a religious loon.

Attacking people for saying that would be like me quoting William Lane Craig and saying "See Christians ultimately would never give up beliefs even in light of contradictory evidence". That is basically in his book called Reasonable Faith just in case you think I am misrepresenting him.

If I had made some statement about only atheist loons are the ones who won’t ever give up their beliefs and you came back with this example of WLC, I would consider it a point well made. That was my point about Dawkins, not only “religious loons” believe certain things are established facts that cannot even be called into question.

As far as representations of intelligence producing intelligence how does that necessitate a deity who simply speaks things into existence?

Well its intelligences generating information, not other intelligences. That being said though, it doesn’t necessitate any such deity, that’s why many in the ID movement believe in other theories such as panspermia. It does not necessitate God, but it is evidence that is in complete harmony with the idea of God.

Even if we have no representation of intelligence being produced without intelligence we most certainly don't have direct evidence of a supernatural being speaking matter into existence.

Scripture is direct evidence of such events. The information theory point I made is just a good way to destroy evolutionary theory as a possibility because it completely defies what we observe to be the case. There are other ways we can move from a generic intelligence to the God of scripture.

That would be impossible to measure scientifically anyway as God is said to be non-physical and undetectable by material means. Perhaps you disagree with that statement and I am curious as to why if you do.

Well not all truth claims are discerned scientifically; in fact you can make a great case that no truth claims are. However, science itself is built upon assumptions that presuppose the existence of God. Without God science itself would be impossible, so in a roundabout way it does help support His existence. I agree with you that God is not detectible by some scientific instrument or process, but we are to know of Him through the things that are made, which takes us back to the information argument.

You did mention that you believe creationism is scientific could you be more specific as to how you think it is? I am not trying to be insulting but I am not familiar with all the intricacies of your reasoning so I was hoping you would be willing to clarify.

I am starting to think you are far too polite to be on this forum, it’s a bit refreshing actually.

Well there are certain aspects of Creation Science that fall under historical sciences. SO this would be more along the lines of paleontology, archeology, evolutionary biology and the forensic sciences. Since you cannot directly observe events taking place in the past you must examine certain lines of evidences and make inferences to the best possible explanations. Creation scientists do this with the fossil record, the distribution of life on Earth, etc. There are certain aspects of Creation Science that are also empirically sound (direct observation and repeatability), they will propose hypothesis and test it empirically in the lab, we saw this with C14 in diamonds and coal. Then there are aspects of Creation Science that are more philosophical in nature since it is also closely tied to Theology. So it’s a very complete discipline.