to Christians in this forum...

It doesn't appear to me sidlined that he was trying to debate science. On the contrary, he was wondering why other Christians would try to prove God with science.He might understand that it is just exactly the literalists who insist on trying to make God disprovable by science that do the most harm to religion.

Which is exactly what I was saying.The only ones who take the view that the evidence disproves God are the Biblical literalists.
They say if the earth is old God doesn't exist. The earth is old so ...If you don't think it is then show us the "correct" interpretation of the evidence given in:
Age Correlations and an Old Earth
and
Greenland Ice Cores

I have to latch on to this one since it is at least one point of agreement. I don't want to oversimplify but I know, well, a number of docs of all political stripes. This is one refrain that is common to them. The drug companies are a big problem. All I can say here is be careful about which ailments you pick for which treatment. People die by making a wrong choice.

Sorry Pinky, you have been mislead. I'll leave the details to someone else.This is an example of one of a number (a large number) of creationist assertions that fall somewhere between misleading and thorougly dishonest.added by edit
Ah, I see Cory has pointed you in the right direction. I hope this and a couple more will help you understand that you may be relying on liars for your information.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-16-2004]

Yes! It turns out that there are blurry lines around what exactly a "fact" is. Theory is certainly different in science from the colloquial idea. A theory is not a suspect fact. It is a much bigger deal than a fact.There is an old thread on this topic.
Message 1

This sounds like a new thread. You can propose one if you actually think you have evidence. By now you may realize how hard that is.

Probably. But you'd have to tell me what you accept as "evidence" before I could answer that.Do you want a new topic or what? Shall we make it on evidence first?[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-16-2004]

New "evidence" thread is proposed?Are there any others you want?I'd suggest that you try to sort out for yourself who is lieing: talkorigins or your other sources. It is important to qualify the sources you use. I would suggest that we can easily show that you are using sources that not only mislead but deliberately do so. Care to test that?

I don't see the "condescending" remarks in the post of Crash's that you are replying to. He does get a wee bit testy now and then so perhaps it was something previous.His comment in that post was nothing directed at any person. It was at the quality of argument put forward by creationists. We would all love to see some real discussion put forward to defend the creationists positions on matters of science.People like Crash spend time in the faith and belief forum ( I think) because he just loves to argue. The creationists avoid the scientific arguments like they were poisonous so he ends up here having fun.If you want to see "strong enough argument" then perhaps you should post to the fora that are about the science rather than the Faith and Belief forum. I think it can be demonstarted that, if one enters into honest discussion there, then there is very little, if any, condescention.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-20-2004]

These statements don't seem to jibe with each other.It is, of course, understandable that you may not know enough about a number of complex subjects to actually add 2 cents worth. However, if you actually want to learn something then asking questions is a great way to start.However little you happen to know I think you will receive an almost universally polite and helpful response if you simply ask honest questions.Where you should start depends on your particular beliefs. If you have any misapprehension that biology, physics and geology has anything to say against your basic faith in God and Christ then there are places to discuss that. It is, in my opinion, simply not the case.If you think that a literal reading of the Bible suggests an earth of only 1,000's of years old then there is a date and dating forum for that. You will note that we get very nearly zero real creationist participation there. There are bursts of postings that are copies of AIG, ICR and worse sites. When the deep flaws in those are pointed out (again) the poster goes away. Why is it that there is simply no scientific defence for a young earth?If you're simply not comfortable with the astonishing array of life arising through evolutionary processes then there are topics for that too. However, this one is much tougher than simple things like the age of the earth or no flood (both very simple issues in comparison). While the basic ideas of evolutionary theory are very simple the subtle details are not. I can understand that one might need a lot of time and knowledge before they grasp what is going on.This site is a debate forum over the direct confrontation between science and those who think that there is such a thing as "scientific" creationism. It is fun for some of the unbelievers to argue away in the faith and belief forum but I don't know why a believer would do that. While we have changed the minds of a few literalists on some of the science I haven't seen anything like that kind of change going the other way. You can't "argue" your way to faith. You can do so to knowledge of the natural world.

Thanks for all this, Des, I'm glad you can see that people who might disagree with you on some issues can be Ok people too. The nature of a persons character doesn't have much to do with either their understanding of science or their belief in any particular faith.

So we are now nearly 60 years from the establishment of Isreal. What does "not pass away" mean. Do we have to wait for the last person born in or after 1948 to die before we can mark your prophesy as wrong? Of will three score and ten do it? We are either 10 or about 60 years away from the return of Christ then, right?What if in the next few decades we dramtically extend human life? Does that mean we, mere humans, can put off the return of Christ? Wow! Pretty impressive!I guess I'm nosy about just what this does mean?