Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   To "Hitchy"--Creation discussion with high school science teacher
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 46 of 57 (107718)
05-12-2004 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Servant2thecause
05-08-2004 2:41 AM


Science and Knowledge Part 3
Sorry for so many replies, Servent, but I only have 20 or 10 or 5 minute chunks of time in which to talk.
Walking by faith...I have several problems with faith.
1) Subjective ideas cannot compete with objective realities in a realistic setting. For instance, the testing for "ghosts" and "spirits". I detect a slight change in temperature by that wall that is stastically significant from the rest of the room. Oh, the breaker box for the house is on the other side of the wall.
2) Subjective ideas should be backed up with objective, empirical evidence. Whether abortion should be legal is subjective. What I think about abortion is subjective and based on my own opinion. However, my opinion is based on objectively gathered evidence and logical arguments.
3) Although faith can have positive effects on one's emotional and psychological well being, it is not universal. Faith is comforting to those who believe in it. It can also lead to distress in those who are having a "crisis of faith" or feel have "lost their faith".
4) Faith can lead to and perpetuate ignorance.
5) All in all, nothing fails like faith, well, except maybe prayer.
Now, what I have said above might make me out to be cold or heartless or uncaring or faithless, but it is just what it is when it deals with blind religious faith. Of course I have faith in some things, but the things I have faith in are tangible and real. I have faith that my girlfriend loves me and would do nothing to purposely upset that idea. I have faith that someday we will find a cure for AIDS and other diseases. I have faith that my co-workers are not trying to screw me over for some reason. I have faith that when I talk to my friends that they are not lying to me. I put my faith in the tangible capicity for humans to make themselves better. I have faith in the knowable and universal. I have faith in me and the people I know and trust and don't know and trust. Living on blind faith in a personal creator that has your best interests in mind may be comforting at the time, but in the end, blind faith still means that you are blind.
Time to review the solar system and the planets...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Servant2thecause, posted 05-08-2004 2:41 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 47 of 57 (107745)
05-12-2004 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Servant2thecause
05-08-2004 2:41 AM


Science and Knowledge Part 4
quote:
Okay, but why evolution? Seriously, where’s the alleged mountain of evidence for it? I’ve read the speciation arguments, the biogeography and distribution arguments, the beneficial mutation arguments, the carbon dating, the K-Ar dating, the geologic strata arguments, the lake varve arguments, the pseudo-gene arguments, but the fact is NONE of those can offer a single PIECE of evidence to the idea that the universe is NOT only 7000 years old and that God created everything.
and...
quote:
but where’s the evidence that I allegedly don’t understand? Every since I have become a member of this forum I have demanded ONE thingtrue empirical evidence WITHOUT an argument that is supported or proposed due to a vested interestand as far as evolution’s evidence goes, that is the ONE thing I haven’t seen yet. I’ve only been shown the same old stories time and time again; that the frequency of similar nonfunctional pseudogenes among similar families proves evolution, that biodiversity among species on different continents proves evolution, that the variation of nylon-digesting bacteria prove evolution, etc. (and the list goes on). But all of that neither proves evolution NOR the Flood.
and...
quote:
since you do not KNOW for certain that we’ve evolved the way Darwin said sobecause God forbid we do not have the ability to travel back in time and see WHICH concept is truewould you fail a student on an evolution-related test if all the answers they gave were from a Biblical perspective? It may seem a little severe, yes, but how much knowledge do we as humans actually have? Our entire history, we have ONLY been able to observe science and the universe from OUR understandingOUR observationsmade from THIS planet. The truth is, there is an infinite amount of knowledge left for us to uncover and therefore the theory of evolutionno matter HOW rational and well-thought out is SEEMS to biologists of the 21st centuryis based on a great lack of knowledge.
and...
quote:
there’s already enough reasonable doubt posed against the ToE that such an argument is not necessary in a creation/evolution debate. Nevertheless, it is a firm proponent of the fact that the age of the universebeyond the realm of a few thousand yearswill never be proven entirely, and thus neither will evolution.
and...
quote:
I have still not seen conclusive evidence for evolution. Yes, I’ve seen an argument that SUPPORTS evolution from virtually every one of the professions mentioned above, but none are conclusive and none can confirm evolution without assumptions first being drawn to fill the gaps in the void of what we do not yet know.
and...
quote:
Perhaps because the only evidence to support the theory is inconclusive (unless you’re delving INTO the subject with a pre-conceived notion that evolution is already proven to be true; because in THAT case you’d be able to find your OWN conclusions to fill the gaps in your evidence with, but you and I both know that’d be unscientific and bias, correct?).
Please refer to the following site if you haven't already...
CA202: Evolution proof
quote:
evolutionwhile unproven and shaky in itselfcontradicts Genesis chapter one, an ancient text that is the basis for the faith of millions of Christians worldwideand Jews and Muslims for that matter.
Evolution is by no means shakey. It has weathered storms and slings and arrows for 145 years. And I mean a lot of storms and attacks and frauds. I don't really see the relevance of the sentence. So what if millions use an ancient mythological text as the basis of their religion? That has nothing to do with supporting creation or falsifying evolution.
quote:
On the other hand, no other theories in science directly contradict anything in the Bible. Now, I say that the Bible is true becausebesides evolutionI have seen no scientific reason to believe that the Bible is wrong, and therefore accept it as a piece of writing that God has given us through inspiration. Thus, I hope you’re not saying that I’m close-minded only because I believe that God has given me a book of his truth?
I would say you are close-minded b/c you think the bible is inerrant. If the bible is inerrant, then anything that contradicts the bible is errant. You have just closed your mind to many things. Most of the bible is mythology. Some of it was borrowed, some was distorted, some was just made up out of thin air. When I come back, I will give you somewhere to go to open your mind to the mythos of the bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Servant2thecause, posted 05-08-2004 2:41 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 48 of 57 (107991)
05-13-2004 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Servant2thecause
05-08-2004 2:41 AM


Clear Evidence Against a 7000 year old Earth
quote:
the fact is NONE of those can offer a single PIECE of evidence to the idea that the universe is NOT only 7000 years old
In the middle of the Atlantic Ocean runs a mid-ocean ridge. Divergent plate boundaries are found here. Hot, low density magma wells up from the aesthenosphere below, causing the plates to move away from the upwelling. The North American plate and the Eurasian plate move apart from each other here at the rate of appox. 2 cm per year. The two plates are separated by 25 hundred miles of ocean. Working backwards, this means that this process has been occurring for the last 200 million years. (Numbers are from an article by George Abell)
Parroting the "mature Earth at birth" or the "flood catastrophe caused everything we see" assertions are not testable nor are they supported by evidence. In fact, how do you know that Earth wasn't created this morning before you woke up with all of your current memories implanted to begin with? Yes, it does sound rediculous, but saying that is just the same as saying "Earth was created 7000 years ago in order to look old!"
quote:
Furthermore, a photograph on the homepage of Evolution-Facts | Fakta & Evolusi Ilmiah depicts a fossilized hammer found in a lump of cretaceous rock. The hammer had not oxidized (suggesting that whoever made the hammer before it became imbedded in cretaceous rock knew how to make stainless steel).
Nice picture. I did some looking on the web and found that the hammer was encrusted in calcium carbonate and not actually in the cretaceous rock where some fossils were found. The hammer was most likely dropped in a crack in some cretaceous rock. The crack was then over time filled with calcium carbonate from some nearby limestone.
quote:
no other theories in science directly contradict anything in the Bible
Archeaology clearly shows that the stories in the OT are frabrications. There is no record outside of the OT that says the Jews were held in Egypt or that the Isrealites conquered anyone in Canaan. I just used what I learned in geology (plate tectonics) to refute a young Earth. Plenty of scientific fields dealing with wide ranging topics have disproven many parts of the bible.
Have a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Servant2thecause, posted 05-08-2004 2:41 AM Servant2thecause has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Servant2thecause, posted 05-14-2004 2:03 AM hitchy has replied
 Message 56 by Mike_King, posted 07-18-2004 7:22 PM hitchy has not replied

Servant2thecause
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 57 (108111)
05-14-2004 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by hitchy
05-13-2004 4:15 PM


Re: Clear Evidence Against a 7000 year old Earth
Every example except the pseudo-gene and beneficial mutation examples you provided do exactly what you say they don't do--they point out that Earth is far older than 7000 years! And guess what? The evidences gathered from relative and radiometric dating techniques are corroborative.
No, mainstream (peer-reviewed) scientists’ interpretations of the evidence point to an earth older than 7000 years. Scientific facts do not speak for themselves--they are open to interpretations (ever heard the analogy of how two people can look at the same thing and reach opposite conclusions?) Here’s an example (please don’t allow your rebuttal to get off topic I’m just using this as an example):
A journalist from National Geographic can stand at the edge of the Grand Canyon and look down, thinking it’s amazing how such a small amount of water did this over the course of such a long time!
Contrastingly, the writer for Technical Journal can stand at the edge of the same spot on the Grand Canyon and say, wow, I am amazed how such a grand amount of water did this over the course of a few weeks!
Another interesting point that I read about from one of those dumb Christian books is the fact that--based upon the observations of Mars as having canyons and valleys much larger than Grand Canyon--many mainstream scientists (most if I’m not mistaken) believe that the geologic phenomena was caused by massive flooding! Interesting how, despite the fact that there is LITTLE IF ANY water on mars, they speculate that the canyons were eroded in such a way while, despite the fact that the earth is covered in 70% water with an average of 2 miles deep, they refuse to accept the possibility that the earth’s geologic features were caused by such flooding.
No one single thing can support a theory.
So you’re saying that none of the facts can speak for themselves, right? Then how do you know that evolution is true when NONE of the facts can support it on their own without the aid of OTHER facts?
Each thing you mentioned by itself is one more brick in the wall of evolution. Taken seperately, they are just bricks--facts that are just there and don't do much except be facts. Start putting them together, well, you get the picture...
But that depends on HOW you put them together. Remember, no one fact in science can speak for itself. All such observations are open to interpretation, and that’s where Intelligent Design and neo-Darwinism differ in the field of science (and DON’T say that Intelligent Design is unscientific it’s pointless, and by the way, that’s what we’re here to discuss, so don’t jump to such a conclusion as many have without looking at all the arguments and evidence).
After all, ever heard of the law of disclosure? In a criminal case, both councils are obligated to share with each other a list of all their witnesses, evidence to be included, as well as the affidavits of the potential witnesses and are therefore not allowed any surprises because otherwise it could very well be a mistrial. In any event, if any evidence or witnesses are left out of the trial process, the verdict may be tainted based upon a lack of one or more pieces of evidence that could sway the verdict.
Similarly, scientific research must look at ALL the possibilities, as well as open their observations to ALL interpretations and ALSO allow for margin of error AND allow for possible fallacies to a particular interpretation based on the possibility of missing evidence and conclusions, for only THEN would a scientific theory stand up without the unnecessary aid of a bias and prejudice by majority rule.
I still don't see what "the flood" has to do with biology. Biogeography, maybe. But if you are saying that the biogeography we see is a result of a worldwide flood, then you have to back it up with some pretty hefty evidence.
True. Let’s get to the main topic and well settle the more minor disputes--namely the puzzler of what had caused the biodiversity of animals worldwide in earth’s history--later.
We might not be able to travel back in time, but there are plenty of scientific fields that deal with gathering evidence of the past and formulating testable hypotheses about those facts. Saying "How do you know since no one was there?" is too much of a cop-out. I don't need to be awake during a rain storm to figure out that it rained the night before. When I go outside in the morning and everything is wet, then I can say with confidence--"Hey, it rained last night (or early this morning)!"
True, but the entire ground (including plants, roads, sidewalks, walls, cars, rooftops, etc.) would have to be wet in order for such a speculation to become reasonable. In the case of creation and evolution, a more accurate analogy would be:
Well, I was camping with my friends. We woke up in the middle of the field and noticed that our sleeping bags and all the grass around us was wet. Therefore, there exist two possible alternate assumptions. (1) it rained last night or early this morning, (2) it cooled off substantially last night to form dew all over the field. My friends and I argued relentlessly over whether it had rained or whether the wet ground was simply caused by dew.
I have never run into that problem. I like to think that by the time we get done with my unit on Evolution and Natural Selection/Classification, the students have a good grasp on what is going on scientifically and have no hang-ups religiously.
So you’re saying that, by the time you’re finished with ‘em, you got ‘em believin’ in your side of things, eh?
Sounds a little accusative, yes, but hypothetically, if I was your student (and granted, I would NEVER try to embarrass or defy you in front of your class simply on behalf of the fact that you and I differ on the origins of the universe and of life) would you fail me on a test if I refused to answer a question from a Darwinian mindset?
If they have questions that deal with a literal interpretation of the bible being against evolution then we talk way before I evaluate anything.
And if the student were to refuse to accept the idea that the Bible is wrong (perfectly okay under the first amendment) would you fail him on a test that requires evolutionist-type answers?
By this rational, you are saying that we can have no faith in what we think we know. If science falls under this, then surely religion does also. What makes science a more viable alternative? I will tell you when I get done with my last three classes of the day...
Not necessarily, because science claims that all of our understanding and knowledge possible for us to grasp can be ascertained through observing our universe and drawing conclusions based on our observations and experiments. On the other hand, religion (namely Christianity) contends that all of our knowledge and understanding possible (and necessary) can be ascertained supernaturally (or naturally, but with a supernatural influence--i.e. special creation of the NATURAL universe). The idea that science does not offer all the answers, and never will, is because of the fact that science is and always will be based upon OUR understanding, observations, and interpretations of the known universe; however, true Christians who put their faith 100% in their Creator obtain wisdom and growth and moral endurance and knowledge and stronger faith based upon their reliance on God and their search for higher understanding (which would include, among other things, delving into science.) After all, Louis Pasteur and Gregor Mendel, two of the most notable biologists in history, were Christians who had faith that God would set the right path for them.
Sure there is a lot we don't know, but that does not mean we cannot know anything to any degree of certainty.
Of course I agree with you there. I wouldn’t be a Christian otherwise. The mere fact of the existence of absolutes is proof enough of your claim (which I totally agree with, btw).
The theories involved with biological evolution are great examples of science.
Let me back up a few weeks’ worth of debate here. When you use the word evolution I assume you’re still referring to the neo-Darwinian theory of common ancestry over the past 3.5 billion years via beneficial mutations and natural selection; am I right in making that assumption? After all, I’m not against the word evolution. Evolution, in the broadest sense, is change over time. Such a theorychange over timeis neither untrue NOR does it contradict the Bible. However, when you apply the broader sense of evolution to the ideology that all living things on earth share a common ancestor, you are taking a leap of faith based on a lack of proof. Granted, that is something that Christians do with the Bible, but it goes to show you that common ancestry and Darwin’s theory on the origin of all modern species of bacteria, protozoa, fungi, plants, and animals is a shaky ground because one change does not necessarily imply another.
Furthermore, I would agree with evolution in many terms. By saying that I happen to believe that the Bible’s original context (the original, untainted versions of Hebrew and Aramaic Scripture) is divinely inspired and the fact that I’m a Christian may imply that I am close-minded to all types of evolution theory and natural selection. This is not the case. I am a Christian, yes, and I believe that the original Hebrew and Aramaic root versions of the Holy Bible were written by people who were inspired to write by the active Spirit of God, yes, but I also believe that natural selection and chance mutation and even speciation are processes that occur in nature and can be tested.
However, natural selection is a process that weeds out the weaker-adapted creatures that cannot survive under certain conditions, while chance mutation is an occurrence in which a random alteration in the genetic make-up of an individual organism, and speciation is a product of adaptation and genetic variation within a population that has allowed for one line of organisms to change beyond the possible realm of common reproductive ability. However, NONE of the above assertions are evidence of the neo-Darwinian evolutionary family tree, for such are processes that go on in nature just as the cycle of precipitation or the fertilization and growth of eukaryotic organisms and therefore do not exclusively offer evidence of the Darwinism-model. Now, these processes may be EXPLAINED and INTERPRETED by the mindset of the neo-Darwinian model, but that only proves that you are looking at such processes THROUGH THE EYES of a Darwinist.
The peer review process would have weeded out such a high profile and "controversial" theory a long time ago.
Again, you’re implying that neo-Darwinian evolution is true because the scientists of mainstream society say so. Regardless of whether that’s what you meant, could you withdraw or rephrase your above statement so that it is no longer disputable as to whether or not it’s true?
Science is based on fact. Science is explainable through natural laws. Science can make predictions about what will happen based on what has already occurred. Science works b/c it, despite all of its immense capability to be the opposite, is tentative. We always leave a little doubt. Contrast that with the "absolute truth" of scripture. Religious ideas don't pass as science. We both know that. So trying to "prove" a religiously motivated idea by backing it up with science is a mockery of both science and religion.
I understand your assertion. Using science to prove that the Bible is correct is neither possible nor necessary. However, using scientific findings as a tool for revealing problems and challenges to the evolution theory is a catalyst which opens the doors to the possibility of logic that, perhaps there IS a God and perhaps there IS a supernatural explanation to the many unexplained phenomena of quantum physics, astronomy, the origins of the universe (whether it be progressive OR instantaneous in origin).
However, if there IS a God then he can do whatever he wants (with his OWN self-set limits for instance, he cannot learn if he already knows everything). Therefore, if there IS a God then he has created and therefore regulates all the laws of the universe and the energy and matter and the states thereof. The precept of the existence of a supernatural being would throw infinite weight against whatever we humans THINK we know. As smart as the intellectuals of our time think they are, I find it absolutely mind-boggling that they cannot seem to grasp such a SIMPLE concept as this. If there is no God, then we are on our own for finding knowledge and higher meaning; if there IS a God then He can control his own universe and we are subject to whatever He ALLOWS to happen.
The statement that you have above is incorrect. It implies that science finds something and then stops looking.
No, it implies that SCIENTISTS (not science in general) rely on evolution because we don’t seem to have a better explanation for the natural phenomena of the universe (by evolution I mean not necessarily life but ALL change over time and ALL origins of matter as well as life).
Wrong. It also says that our theory is accepted as fact. Wrong. Theories are explanations of facts. I wish you would stop using this quote. It is incorrect. Saying it in every post will not make it fact.
First off, I only used it twice here. Secondly, if evolution is an explanation of facts and not an actual fact itself then why are you going through so much trouble to defend it? (Let each person come up with whatever explanation fits them in terms of describing the origins of the universe and life and modern creatures).
First, evolution does not comment on origins.
Wrong. The neo-Darwinian evolution model of biological evolution does not comment on origins. However, evolution refers, in the scientific sense, to the processes and events of history throughout all space and time that point to the origins of matter, energy, life, AND modern species. We’re talking about all these subjects, not just one of them (otherwise I would be finished because I want to address the origins, age, and processes of the universe as a whole and not JUST the emergence of life within the past however long ago it is).
Third, evolution is science and is therefore taught in science classes.
How do you define what science is again? Knowledge through observation, application, and experimentation of the knowns of our universe, is it? Well then, if THAT constitutes science, then why isn’t the existence of God/a supernatural being classified as science? Before you respond to this, hear me out
God is, by definition, the supreme or ultimate reality as well as the perfectly wise and powerful creator and ruler of the universe (look it up on Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary, the website for Merriam Webster). Moreover, if science deals with the natural and the reality of the universe, then from where did matter and energy originate? And if you have an answer to that question, is it scientific? And if it is scientific, how can you tell? There is no explanation which can be determined, without bias or opinion, to be absolutely true. Therefore, the mere origin of matter and energy is, for the time being, a supernatural phenomenon of natural element.
You cannot see the wind even though you can see the effects of the wind.
You cannot see the beginning of the universe no matter HOW hard and long you speculate on it.
Granted, the former can be given a reasonable explanation as to the cause thereof. However, that was not the point I was making. If there is no probable cause as to the origin of all matter and energy, many hypotheses are considered possible explanations from a scientific viewpoint. Furthermore, matter and energy are dealt with in scientific means because of the fact that they are tangible and natural. Hence, if I asserted that the origins of matter and energynatural qualities of the universecould be explained by supernatural means, on what ground would you base your rebuttal? On the grounds of the fact that I do not have enough scientific proof to back it up, perhaps?
There is no reasonable doubt against evolution that you have provided. You have provided your doubts, but these stem from a misapplication and/or misunderstanding of the topic you are arguing against.
Are you suggesting that, because I don’t believe in Darwin’s theory, I must therefore not understand it enough? When you talk about faulty logic ever in the future, remind me to point THIS statement out.
Sure there is reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt constitutes about 90% certainty. Darwin’s theory is not proven to the point of 90% certainty because there is a huge gap between the observations/experiments and the conclusions consequently drawn.
Allow me to point out a gap. Darwin observed the relative changes in the size of the beaks of the finches on the Galapagos Islands over the course of a few years, correct? How does that indicate that the birds have been changing for millions of years? (Stick to the main point being discussed, not the direct wording of my sentence when reviewing this, because many people tend to try too hard when reading in to what I’m saying).
Another one: the astrophysical red shift of light being radiated from quasars causes many scientists to speculate that, because of a Doppler effect, the stars are moving away from us. Therefore, scientists speculate the universe to be expanding. Therefore, scientists propose that the universe and all the components thereof were once condensed within a single iota (speck). How does the red shift and the Hubble Constant prove the Big Bang theory? Again, how does the red shift or the Hubble Constant, or both, prove the majority opinion on how the universe came to be? Bottom line is, it doesn’t.
Another one: the geologic stratified layers offer preserved fossils. 95% of all the fossils are aquatic, and the ones tending to be the simplest or oldest are generally found at the bottom. A geologist may find a layer of cretaceous rock, fossils embedded in it, and come to all sorts of conclusions (some reasonable, some not) but how does THAT prove that it evolved from the types of organisms found several meters below it in the chunk of rock? Also, radiometric dating does not measure the age of a specimen; rather, it measures the amount of an isotope in ratio to the by-product left behind and, based on underlying assumptions, an inference as to the age of the specimen is determined. Let me quote a research paper written not too long ago, addressing the subject: (btw, emphasis on the word conclusive in paragraph one):
The problematic challenge to premise one of neo-Darwinian evolution and mainstream understanding of scientific processes of origins is the fact that there is no conclusive evidence to support the idea that the universe is 15 billions years old, or 7000 years old for that matter (7000 years is an age of the universe commonly accepted by creationists who advocate intelligent design).
A tentative argument in support of the neo-Darwinian model for the earth’s age is that of radiometric dating. However, radiometric dating is oftenmost commonly, actuallyunreliable. All radiometric dating methods are based upon the following assumptions:
* How much of a particular isotopic chemical was originally present
* There has been no leakage by water of the chemicals (into or out of) the specimen
* Radioactive decay rates have always remained constant
However, when the assumptions given are tested by measuring rocks of previously known agee.g. recent lava flowsthey often fail miserably to determine a correct age of the specimen.7
And so, a reasonable scientific question posed to all those concerned is: what is the age of the universe and what is the explanatory solution that can account for the origin of all matter?
Source: G. B. L. Three Premises. May, 2004.
Wieland, Carl. The Earth: How Old Does it Look? Creation ex nihilo. Vol. 23 No. 1.
December 2000-February 2001. p. 13
This statement goes against the Christian affirmation of a god who would not deceive us. It also stretches any reliable ideas about how a god would work.
No, it does neither. First of all, if we are deceived, it is our own fault (hypothetically, was it God’s fault that Eve was tempted to eat from the tree of knowledge)? Furthermore, this statement does not go against any Christian affirmation because God WOULD and DID create the universe to be already mature (hypothetically, God created a full-grown mannamely Adamon a single day). Let me give you an example of how the appearance of age (geologic strata, stars being billions of light years away yet having light already visible to us, etc.) is the same reason why he would have created a tree in a single day, yet with thousands of annual rings already inside it. Let’s say God creates Adam, along with millions of trees already hundreds of feet high. Ten years later Cain is born. Twenty years after THAT Cain cuts a tree down and counts the rings inside. Seeing 400 annual rings, Cain yells at his dad for lying to him about the universe only being created 30 years ago. Adam explains that the tree was created to be mature (i.e. to look as though it had been there all along) and therefore is still only 30 years old, along wit Adam and his 20 year-old son. Yet Cain still refuses to believe what Adam says because Cain SEES the rings for himself (he SEES evidence for the earth to be at the very least 400 years old). How do you know that modern scientists are not taking the same example and having it put into terms of radiometric dating? I believe that God created the universe 7000 years ago. Call it science; call it faith; call it a pain in the neck; but, above all, call it a possibility!
Now, if I remember right, my grade in high school biology was an 86% and my grade in high school chemistry was 98%. I am not dumb to science and will not ever let my personal and moral beliefs interfere with scientific research. That is, regardless of what I see as a reality about the world, I still understand how science works and I believe that much good can come from science. I also have a deep interest in many (most, actually) areas of science and I will continue to do research and learning in most if not all areas of science for as long as I am alive and able. All the scientific findings of the world do not prove that there is no God and, frankly, it doesn’t matter much in the long run. As a Christian, I believe that what matters, what matters INFINITELY MORE than the slight issue of evolution and the age of the earth, is how we view God and what choices we make in relation to whether or not we put our faith in the God that created us (no matter HOW he created us or how long ago it was).
using something from the bible to verify something else from the bible is tautological.
Likewise, using two or more evidences of evolution to support one another is equally tautological. Since facts cannot stand for themselves without being interpreted differently, how can you say that Darwinian evolution is true beyond a reasonable doubt?
Walking by faith...I have several problems with faith.
First of all, walking by faith does not mean being BLIND to everything else. After all, the Bible does not say walk by faith and be blind elsewhere. Rather, it says walk by faith, not by sight. There is a difference. To walk by faith and be blind elsewhere means to TOTALLY cut off any influence on our lives OTHER than that which comes by faith (the evidence of things not seen). On the contrary, to walk by faith means to let faith be our largest (not sole) component that affects our lives. The Bible does not say be blind, rather, the Bible is full of instances in which a person’s perception and vision is IMPROVED (thus suggesting that blindness is not good, even in Biblical terms). In other words, having faith should take precedence over the possibility of deception (altering a person’s perception based on a lack of total knowledge about a particular situation) but faith should NOT consume 100% of our lives because we do not need to have faith that the sky is blue, for you can just go outside on a warm sunny day and look up. Now then, let’s get back to the main issue.
3) Although faith can have positive effects on one's emotional and psychological well being, it is not universal. Faith is comforting to those who believe in it. It can also lead to distress in those who are having a "crisis of faith" or feel have "lost their faith".
Faith is like any other learned behavior or emotion; it builds itself upon past experiences and beneficial occurrences in an individual’s life surrounding the concept of faith. Heck, even the BIBLE agrees with this assertion! The Bible says that faith comes from somewhere--an accumulated trait.
Faith can lead to and perpetuate ignorance.
Yes it can, but it does not universally do so. For instance, the problem behind the Dark Ages. I cannot think of any culture that served as a bad example of Christians MORESO than the Catholic Church leaders during the Dark Ages. Using no regard for improving physical wellbeing or technology, the society of the Dark Ages (including technological advancements) fell far below the standard that came thousands of years earlier, with the Egyptians and the Israelites and the Greeks and Chinese.
Faith without anything else is not enough. That is why I believe in science as well, and I don’t know of any Bible-believers (STRONG EMPHASIS on TRUE Bible-believers) who would contend that being negligent to the realm of human advancement in society is a good thing. (Thus, as a Christian AND one who believes in the inerrancy of God’s word, I believe that the Dark Ages’ church was not a TRUE Christian organization but was rather serving as a bad example of how Christian society SHOULD BE but was NOT).
All in all, nothing fails like faith, well, except maybe prayer.
You do not know that. It is 100% opinion. Furthermore, it angers me to hear that. I do not hate you, nor will I ever, but it upsets me to see that a person would be close-minded to faith in a such a way. You accused me of being close-minded because I believe in the Bible. Well, I believe that there is a God (so call me close-minded) and I believe that God gave us a tool to learn more about Him, i.e. the Bible, (so if I’m close-minded for believing that God would have wanted us to read and learn about Him, then it frightens me to think about somebody who is NOT close-minded).
Also, I do not base my faith in the Bible. The Bible is not where I found my faith in God. My faith is IN God, and nothing else. That means that, if you could prove beyond all doubt that the Bible is incorrect, then you would not sway my faith whatsoever because my faith is in something even MORE real than a book; it’s in a moral absolute (a universal truth).
I would say you are close-minded b/c you think the bible is inerrant. If the bible is inerrant, then anything that contradicts the bible is errant. You have just closed your mind to many things. Most of the bible is mythology. Some of it was borrowed, some was distorted, some was just made up out of thin air. When I come back, I will give you somewhere to go to open your mind to the mythos of the bible.
On the contrary. As stated above: I do not hate you, nor will I ever, but it upsets me to see that a person would be close-minded to faith in a such a way. You accused me of being close-minded because I believe in the Bible. Well, I believe that there is a God (so call me close-minded) and I believe that God gave us a tool to learn more about Him, i.e. the Bible, (so if I’m close-minded for believing that God would have wanted us to read and learn about Him, then it frightens me to think about somebody who is NOT close-minded).
First of all, no one part of the Bible contradicts another, and I’ve read the Bible cover to cover more than once. This may seem like a so what? argument, but let me clarify a few points. First of all, every major event written about in the New Testament was prophesized in the Old Testament (written centuries earlier). And let me point out, there is no dispute as to when the Bible was written, and very little dispute as to by whom.
First off, the Old Testament was written over the course of about 1100 years (from roughly 1500 B.C. to the fifth century B.C.) and the entire Old Testament fits as not only the perfect predecessor, but also the perfect prophecy for the New Testament. There are hundreds of events written about in the New Testament that were discussed in fervent detail hundreds of years prior. This is undisputed (whether the events of the New Testament and the prophecy of the Old Testament are based on supernatural influence, or not, is arguable, but not the fact that the two coincide nonetheless). Thus, there are only three possible conclusions that I can think of:
1) The events of the New Testament and the prophecy of the OT are completely coincidental, beyond any reasonable realm of mathematical probability
2) The OT and NT are the components of a conspiracy spanning the entire history of human civilization, in which the dozens of writers of the Bible were all in perfect synchrony to the point that they had pre-planned the entire writing of the Bible from 1500 B.C. to 90 A.D. (when the last book of the Bible was written).
3) The OT and NT are miraculously coincidental to the point that God had inspired the composing of them
So, if you’re still going to call me close-minded for believing conclusion (3) above the other two, based on logical reasoning of what God would have wanted in my best interests, then so be it.
In the middle of the Atlantic Ocean runs a mid-ocean ridge. Divergent plate boundaries are found here. Hot, low density magma wells up from the aesthenosphere below, causing the plates to move away from the upwelling. The North American plate and the Eurasian plate move apart from each other here at the rate of appox. 2 cm per year. The two plates are separated by 25 hundred miles of ocean. Working backwards, this means that this process has been occurring for the last 200 million years. (Numbers are from an article by George Abell)
I understand the movement of the continents. However, that neither means they have ALWAYS been moving NOR does it mean that the earth is billions of years old.
Parroting the "mature Earth at birth" or the "flood catastrophe caused everything we see" assertions are not testable nor are they supported by evidence.
That is why they’re still hypotheses in the realm of science, not theories. However, they are still possible alternatives to the theory that the mid-Atlantic ridge has been spreading the continents over the past 200 m.y.
Archeaology clearly shows that the stories in the OT are frabrications. There is no record outside of the OT that says the Jews were held in Egypt or that the Isrealites conquered anyone in Canaan.
Clearly shows, you say? Then tell me, why does archaeology show also, that there is evidence of an Egyptian army at the bottom of the Red Sea, with gold-plated wooden chariots and chariot-wheels not attached to their chariots (described in Exodus 14:25) and, btw, the age determined by the style and structure of the chariots matches the same time period of the Red Sea Crossing in the Bible? Also, there exist two pillars, one on either side of the Red Sea (the Gulf of Aqaba, to be exact) which were inscribed by King Solomon to commemorate the Red Sea Crossing (an event found by Archaeology that matches the Bible but is not found IN the Bible).
I just used what I learned in geology (plate tectonics) to refute a young Earth. Plenty of scientific fields dealing with wide ranging topics have disproven many parts of the bible.
Not true. The use of plate tectonics to describe the age of the earth (which I already have shown the major hole in the argument) is like using the traveling of a car on Highway 101 in Oregon to PROVE that the car started in L.A. four days earlier (it could have gotten on at the last exit). Like how the fact that Highway 101 extends from Canada to California does not prove that a car traveling north through Oregon MUST HAVE started in L.A., the movement of the plate tectonics does not PROVE that they have always been moving (or that the earth is more than 7000 years old). If you disagree, explain this to me like I’m a five-year-old:
How does the movement of the plate tectonics PROVE that the earth is 200 millions years old?
As I stated earlier (my most important points, I believe):
Radiometric dating and plate tectonic movement measurement do not measure age. Rather, they respectively measure the amounts of isotopes and the direction and speed of continental drift, and from that an inference is made as to the age of the earth (based on uniformitarian viewpoints and assumed interpretations of the evidence). I believe that God created the universe 7000 years ago. Call it science; call it faith; call it a pain in the neck; but, above all, call it a possibility!
I am not dumb to science and will not ever let my personal and moral beliefs interfere with scientific research. That is, regardless of what I see as a reality about the world, I still understand how science works and I believe that much good can come from science. I also have a deep interest in many (most, actually) areas of science and I will continue to do research and learning in most if not all areas of science for as long as I am alive and able. All the scientific findings of the world do not prove that there is no God and, frankly, it doesn’t matter much in the long run.
Thank you for taking the time to read this LENGTHY response (I understand your schedule being as busy as mine seems to be... I hear ya).
Well, sincerely,
Servant

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by hitchy, posted 05-13-2004 4:15 PM hitchy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by hitchy, posted 05-17-2004 5:44 PM Servant2thecause has not replied
 Message 51 by hitchy, posted 05-18-2004 12:37 PM Servant2thecause has not replied
 Message 52 by hitchy, posted 05-19-2004 9:12 AM Servant2thecause has not replied
 Message 53 by hitchy, posted 05-19-2004 5:44 PM Servant2thecause has not replied
 Message 54 by hitchy, posted 05-24-2004 10:06 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 50 of 57 (108870)
05-17-2004 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Servant2thecause
05-14-2004 2:03 AM


Re: Clear Evidence Against a 7000 year old Earth
quote:
Scientific facts do not speak for themselves--they are open to interpretations
In science, everything is open to testing and review. If the "interpretations" (theories) are not supported by the results of the testing, then they have to be re-thought. Without explanations and the ability to make predictions and infer or postulate cause/effect, facts are useless.
The grass is green. OK, so what? The grass is green b/c it contains chlorophyll. OK, so what? The chlorophyll is used in a process called photosynthesis that we cannot see. Yet, this process is responsible for the 21% of the atmosphere that is oxygen and creates the basis for almost every food chain that is exposed directly to sunlight! We can detect the products of each step in the process and take images of chloroplasts under high powered electron microscopes, but we had to come up with an explanation for how the process worked before we could delve into it. That is called creating a hypothesis (if such and such, then so and so or any other way to show cause and effect and make predictions), then either performing experiments or just plain collecting data (using microscopes, etc.).
I am sure many hypotheses had to be revised before the process of photosynthesis was entirely explained. Incidentally, there are two stages in photosynthesis that don't have to occur at the same time and do not occur in the same place (both processes, light capture/electron transport chain and the Calvin cycle still occur in the chloroplast, though). I am sure an inference that connected both processes to begin with had to be created first from the available evidence and then tested numerous times before being confirmed. Interesting how the experiments not only generate explanations, but enlighten us to new facts! Even with all of the experiments carried out and the trust we put into the current explanation being correct, some things, like the structure of the thylakoid membrane, are still part speculation. I teach my students about photosynthesis every year and a great emphasis is placed on it in our county and state curriculums b/c of its interaction as a cycle with aerobic cellular respiration and the basis of all food pyramids/chains/webs/whatever. I wonder why no one is complaining about photosynthesis, a scientific explanation that is still not exactly explained 100% and is still allowed to be taught!
Point--although causal relationships are indeed subject to interpretation, the application of the scientific method (which includes experimentation) will lead you to the best possible answer. Sometimes the best answer is continually updated and changed when new evidences are found and new data is gathered. However, the main theories involved with biological evolution are even stronger and incredibly more supported today then when purposed by Darwin and Wallace 146 years ago. How? Through experimentation. I don't think you understand how much scrutiny a theory has to go through in order for us to keep using it as an explanation. Every modification, every experiment that started off either for or against some aspect of biological evolution has merely further confirmed and strengthened it.
So, although the facts of science are open to interpretation, we can feel confidant that the experimental methods of science used to interpret these observations support evolution and an ancient Earth. However, there is no evidence that Earth is less than 200 million years old and plenty that says it is around 4.5 billion years old. Furthermore, not only is biological evolution the best interpretation of the data, it is the one held in most confidence by the scientific community, who, as said by Judge Overton, do the science (in his ruling in Epperson v. Arkansas, Judge Overton said that "science is what scientists do". Read Creationism on Trial by Gilkey. It provides good arguments for why religiously motivated ideas, such as creationism, should not be taught in public school classrooms."
quote:
Another interesting point that I read about from one of those dumb Christian books is the fact that--based upon the observations of Mars as having canyons and valleys much larger than Grand Canyon--many mainstream scientists (most if I’m not mistaken) believe that the geologic phenomena was caused by massive flooding! Interesting how, despite the fact that there is LITTLE IF ANY water on mars, they speculate that the canyons were eroded in such a way while, despite the fact that the earth is covered in 70% water with an average of 2 miles deep, they refuse to accept the possibility that the earth’s geologic features were caused by such flooding.
Actually, if you go to the official website for MER, you will see that although there is a mountain of evidence for water on Mar's surface at one time, one major conclusion is still reached, this water was there early in Mars history and came from inside the planet the same way most of Earth's came to be. However, any water left on Mars now is locked in the ice capped poles or is frozen in the ground like permafrost. The cold keeps water from becoming liquid on Mars now, but early in Mars history, oceans and lakes could have been on the martian surface the same as they were on Earth. In fact, most of Earth was covered with water around 3 billion years ago. Mars could have been the same, until it's tectonic processes ceased. One feature of Mars early tectonics involved a huge uplift in the area Valles Marineris is located. Although water could have been involved in the side channels, water alone cannot account for the entire canyon. The breaking of the crust during the uplift or during its subsequent cooling are more likely than erosion by water.
Earth was almost entirely covered by water at one time. However, that was around 3 billion years ago. A far cry from a mere 7000.
Besides, Earth is tectonically active. Crust is continually deformed or subducted or eroded or folded, etc. If Mars was still tectonically active, the features we are observing on that planet today would not be the same. Some would definitely not be there and ones that never were, could be. Mars surface is a snapshot frozen in time. Earth's surface is constantly changing. However, and I will continue to say this--no evidence supports a worldwide biblical flood.
One more thing, catastrophes do occur and have occurred through Earth's history. However, most of Earth's history is one of gradual change interupted by occasional catastrophes. I will say again--no evidence supports a catastrophe on the scale of a worldwide flood that could be historically recorded by humans anywhere. Especailly if you say it occurred within the past 7000 years.
{following added by edit}
Let me clarify what I said about catastrophes and gradualism. I cannot decide if I made catastrophes sound too vague in their place in history. I guess we could say that an asteroid/huge meteorite (actually several throughout Earth's long history) hitting Earth or a huge flood of the Pacific Northwest due to the rupture of an ice dam holding back a huge lake of meltwater or the eruption of many volcanoes in the same place at or near the same time would be considered catastrophes. Some catastrophes are smaller than others, some involve the whole planet. Some geologic phenomena, such as earthquakes and volcanoes, can change things in a matter of seconds or minutes.
The key thing to remember here is that processes occurring now also occurred in the past. Some geologic processes are relatively quick, some are relatively slow. Some are epic in scale, some almost impreceptable. And yes, catastrophes do occur. However, the things that have occurred during Earth's long history are supported by the evidences left by the occurances. No evidence for a global flood, sorry
This message has been edited by hitchy, 05-18-2004 11:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Servant2thecause, posted 05-14-2004 2:03 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 51 of 57 (109030)
05-18-2004 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Servant2thecause
05-14-2004 2:03 AM


Back to Fact and Theory
quote:
So you’re saying that none of the facts can speak for themselves, right?
Actually, the facts do speak for themselves. They are what they are. They are occurances that are so repeatly confirmed that it would be dishonest to say they didn't exist.
quote:
Then how do you know that evolution is true when NONE of the facts can support it on their own without the aid of OTHER facts?
Biological evolution is a theory (well, a group of theories) that is extremely well supported by the facts and gathered evidences. I think you are confused about what a theory is and isn't. A theory is an explanation of several phenomena that involves many hypotheses that have been tested and supported many times. So, what I said is true, one fact alone cannot {added by edit} comprise (XXXon its own supportXXX) a theory. {end edit} A hypothesis, yes, but since theories explain many things and are supported by many facts, no one fact {on its own} can prove/support a theory. {Theories do not rely solely on one fact or set of data.}
More later...
{Following added by edit}
What I said above sounded right at the time, but I think I can make it clearer. What I mean is that a theory has to be based on more than one set of data, facts, etc. A theory covers more than one thing. A fact can support a theory, but a theory is not just one fact. In order to be a theory, the theory must explain the causal relationships of facts and evidences.
This message has been edited by hitchy, 05-19-2004 07:38 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Servant2thecause, posted 05-14-2004 2:03 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 52 of 57 (109228)
05-19-2004 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Servant2thecause
05-14-2004 2:03 AM


Huh!?!
quote:
But that depends on HOW you put them together. Remember, no one fact in science can speak for itself. All such observations are open to interpretation, and that’s where Intelligent Design and neo-Darwinism differ in the field of science (and DON’T say that Intelligent Design is unscientific it’s pointless, and by the way, that’s what we’re here to discuss, so don’t jump to such a conclusion as many have without looking at all the arguments and evidence)
1)Facts do speak for themselves. They are self-evident.
2)I have looked at ID. I even wrote letters to my state rep in PA when I was still at IUP and they were redoing the state science standards with a big push towards ID. (ID never made it in, but I was holding my breath.) Anyway, ID is not supported by any evidence, unless of course you count what we haven't found out yet as evidence. ID has been tested and discredited. Irreducibly complex systems do not exist. If you want clearly spelled out arguments, check out The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins. Also look in Bully for Brontosaurus by Gould. (I am sure there are many other places to look includign Talkorigins. I just came up with those two off of the top of my head.) ID is not accepted b/c its postulates are continually proven incorrect. Does that stop ID? Of course not. They just say, OK, let's move back a step. (Examples that have been explained better through mainstream biology than ID include blood clotting and the eye.) I love the cartoon where two scientists have a series of equations on the board and the second to last space says "Insert miracle here". What fun!?! Maybe I can make something up that is just vague enough and sounds scientific that it can be gobbled up by an all too credulous public.
3)ID is useless. To claim it is valid in spite of ALL of its poor showings is academically and intellectually dishonest. That would be breaking a commandment, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Servant2thecause, posted 05-14-2004 2:03 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 53 of 57 (109303)
05-19-2004 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Servant2thecause
05-14-2004 2:03 AM


Re: Clear Evidence Against a 7000 year old Earth
quote:
True, but the entire ground (including plants, roads, sidewalks, walls, cars, rooftops, etc.) would have to be wet in order for such a speculation to become reasonable. In the case of creation and evolution, a more accurate analogy would be:
Well, I was camping with my friends. We woke up in the middle of the field and noticed that our sleeping bags and all the grass around us was wet. Therefore, there exist two possible alternate assumptions. (1) it rained last night or early this morning, (2) it cooled off substantially last night to form dew all over the field. My friends and I argued relentlessly over whether it had rained or whether the wet ground was simply caused by dew.
Look for puddles. If you were sleeping outside then you must of felt the rain if it rained. Chances are that rain would wake you up if you were sleeping outside. If in a tent, you would be able to hear it. Anyway, my point is that you have to look for more than one line of evidence to make your ideas credible.
quote:
And if the student were to refuse to accept the idea that the Bible is wrong (perfectly okay under the first amendment) would you fail him on a test that requires evolutionist-type answers?
Why would I ask a question about the validity of the bible on a biology test? If the answer is wrong, it is wrong regardless of motivation. If a student refused to take a test on evolution/natural selection, we would have a talk. Then we would have a talk with mom and dad or whomever is the caregiver. I would go up the chain and follow procedure (if there is one).
quote:
The idea that science does not offer all the answers, and never will, is because of the fact that science is and always will be based upon OUR understanding, observations, and interpretations of the known universe; however, true Christians who put their faith 100% in their Creator obtain wisdom and growth and moral endurance and knowledge and stronger faith based upon their reliance on God and their search for higher understanding (which would include, among other things, delving into science.)
I have no problem with the unknown. I strive to increase my knowledge of the natural world, but I know I will never know as much as I want to know. The thing about faith is good for the Christians, if you are a Christian. What about non-Christians? I know, let's offer them a plate at the scientific table. Reason and common sense, hypothesizing and testing, all the nice things that make science universal and not constrained to one faith or non-faith.
quote:
Let me back up a few weeks’ worth of debate here. When you use the word evolution I assume you’re still referring to the neo-Darwinian theory of common ancestry over the past 3.5 billion years via beneficial mutations and natural selection; am I right in making that assumption?
What you think of as Darwinian evolution is actually composed of five theories. 1)Evolution, as such, 2)common descent, 3)speciation, 4)gradualism, 5)natural selection. (This comes from Ernst Mayr. I think he has enough credentials.)
1)Organisms evolve from other organisms over time
2)All organisms share a common ancestor with all other organisms and can be arranged on a branching phylogenetic tree.
3)Species change and some will become new species
4)Evolution occurs in populations gradually, no saltations
5)I have already spelled out natural selection.
quote:
However, when you apply the broader sense of evolution to the ideology that all living things on earth share a common ancestor, you are taking a leap of faith based on a lack of proof.
Here we go again with your charge of a lack of proof. Common descent is the best backed theory up there. In fact, most scientists regard it (#2) as fact. The fossil record is just one of the devasting proofs for common descent. There is no leap of faith and there is definitely no lack of proof.
Have a nice day!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Servant2thecause, posted 05-14-2004 2:03 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 54 of 57 (110114)
05-24-2004 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Servant2thecause
05-14-2004 2:03 AM


Tired of the Same Old Run Around
Why do I provide evidence and argue for science with you, servent? No matter what I say, you disregard it. Oh well, I am a teacher, and I know that sometimes you just end up talking to the wall!
Anyway, let's look at track records, shall we. On one hand, we have a theory that has not been refuted since its publication 145 years ago. On the other hand, we have a movement by certain Christian groups that has a miserable track record.
"Scientific Creationism" is a misnomer. There is nothing scientific about what the creationists do. They make assertions that they think they can use to prove that the bible is true and that the thousands (or millions) of scientists since Darwin that have studied and hypothesized and experimented with aspects of biological evolution, are wrong. So what if all of the evidence points to the theory of common descent? So what if we live in a world governed by natural laws and is unexplained in some areas? If something does not fit with "our" model of the universe as "revealed" to us by "our god", then it must be made to fit. Failing this, it must be explained away with a bunch of smoke, mirrors, bald-faced lies, lies by omission, clever wordings, blatant and purposeful misinterpretations and misrepresentations of data, petty name-calling, arguments from emotion, painting your opponents (whether true or not, a scientist's personal beliefs should not be held against his/her findings as long as the findings are unbiased and true to the data) and/or any of the other deceitful, repugnant, dishonest, childish, pathetic, morally appalling, and [insert favorite "word display of disgust" here] tricks that seem to have no repercussions in the afterlife. After all, Saint Augustine did say that lying in defence of the bible was a good thing.
Science is not perfect. NO ONE ever said it was. Mistakes are made, hoaxes are created (and then shot down eventually by science), bias is shown, but nowhere is the scientific community as a whole trying to dupe anyone into believing what they think. In fact, it doesn't matter what we think b/c the process of science is inherently self-correcting and mistakes are discovered and rectified. Implying that scientists are not allowed to make mistakes is ludicrous.
However, creationism is based on a mistake--that something regarded as supernatural can provide any rational explanation for natural phenomena. If you say that you are not trying to provide a rational explanation, then that is fine. But what good does that do us? And what does the supernatural have to do with science? I will concede that science deals with the natural world and is limited to studying nature and natural phenomena. Science deals with something different and out of the range of creationism. So we are looking at two different ways of thinking here. NO concessions, one is right and the other is wrong.
Science--testable, falsifiable, supports its predictions with empirical evidence, is universal, has a great track record of showing us how the natural world works (cell theory, germ theory of disease, common descent, etc.)
"Scientific creationism"--some things testable, some things falsifiable, relies on revelation and subjective experiences most times, incredibly poor track record.
Problems with creationism's track record--
1)misinterpretation and deliberate misrepresentation of the second law of thermodynamics
2)catastrophism and hyper-adaptation (no evidence, only inferences that go against current evidences)
3)misuse of probability and statistics
4)coal forms rapidly, so Earth is not that old (well, only if you disregard all of the surrounding evidence that points to a time period 150 million years ago)
5)helium argument (soooooooo bad!)
6)space dust argument (based and propagated on old and since updated data)
7)irreducible complexity (god of the gaps argument is scientifically wortheless)
8)Sun size arguments(Sun is too big for its age, too small for its age, too bright, not bright enough)
9)no transitional fossils (everytime a transitional fossil is found, the creationists say, "OK, where is the transitional fossil between this new fossil and the other fossils?" Kind of like the whole idea that if you cut your distance in half everytime you went to touch something you will never actually reach/touch it!)
More later...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Servant2thecause, posted 05-14-2004 2:03 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by hitchy, posted 06-10-2004 2:19 PM hitchy has not replied

hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 55 of 57 (114168)
06-10-2004 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by hitchy
05-24-2004 10:06 AM


Re: Tired of the Same Old Run Around
I kindly request that servent answer my last message. If he/she does not by next Wednesday, I would like the thread to be closed. I feel that I have laid a good case against servent. The fat lady is singing...
Is there anyway for me to get feedback? I would like some help if I am incorrect or overzelous or need to tweak something. I will need it. My girlfriend teaches AP Biology at a different school in the county and has already been approached by a parent for teaching evolution. "I am keeping my eye on you!" Are you kidding me!?!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by hitchy, posted 05-24-2004 10:06 AM hitchy has not replied

Mike_King
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 57 (125510)
07-18-2004 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by hitchy
05-13-2004 4:15 PM


Re: Clear Evidence Against a 7000 year old Earth
quote:
Archeaology clearly shows that the stories in the OT are frabrications. There is no record outside of the OT that says the Jews were held in Egypt or that the Isrealites conquered anyone in Canaan. I just used what I learned in geology (plate tectonics) to refute a young Earth. Plenty of scientific fields dealing with wide ranging topics have disproven many parts of the bible.
Sorry, but that is simply not true. I can't remember which documentary it was, but the hebrew nation DID at one time settle in Egypt. The fallen walls of Jericho have been excavated.
You are right about geology, there is nothing in the bible to suggest a young earth as Gen 1 was a poem how God created the 'Sabbath' as a day of rest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by hitchy, posted 05-13-2004 4:15 PM hitchy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by AdminAsgara, posted 07-18-2004 7:47 PM Mike_King has not replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 57 of 57 (125514)
07-18-2004 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Mike_King
07-18-2004 7:22 PM


Re: Clear Evidence Against a 7000 year old Earth
Hi Mike, I am going to request that you start a new topic if you wish to discuss this issue, with Hitchy or anyone else. This particular thread is in The Great Debate forum. This forum is for particular topics that are being debated between only two people. Hitchy and Servent2theCause have been debating here.
I am now going to honor Hitchy's wishes and close this thread. Any further discussion will need to be in a new topic.

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe


http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
Note from Adminnemooseus - The related side discussion topic is still open. It can be found at To "Hitchy"--Creation discussion... (Side comments to the "Great Debate" topic)
[Note: This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Mike_King, posted 07-18-2004 7:22 PM Mike_King 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