This settles it.. Never moving down south..

quote:

---

The real reason I believe in creation is becasue of my Christian experince and almost any creaitonist will tell you that. The data itself can be interpreted either way with approximately the same success.

---

JM: Exxon came to recruit at UF last week. They did not ask if there was anyone doing ye-geology. You would think that someone interested in cash would not care about the methodology used. So where are all the 'creation' explanations for geology and biology in the literature? If they are equally good, then they should be represented 50-50, yet they are not! The only excuse you can have is a conspiracy theory a hallmark of pseudoscience.CheersJoe Meert

^ I will admitt that we are claiming a conspiracy theory of a sort Joe. The scriptures tell us in black and white, in the context of creation and he flood that:

quote:

---

They will say . . . everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 2 Pet 3:4-7

---

So yes, mainstream science has deliberately turned its back on the proclamaiton of scripture. And those who did it were in the context of an openly Christian society.At the end of the day it is a spiritual conspiracy but it has physical ramifiations. the data can be interpreted either way and we are all free to choose. There is a narrow way and a broad way.PS I do love the humour of your post. The idea of Exon coming and wanting to recruit from people with PhDs in YEC is highly amusing. Or a YEC section at a geo confernce. I wonder how Austin introduces himself? 'I do global flood geology' must go down like a lead balloon. YECism as a mainstream concept is funny in the context of secular society. Although I can laugh at this the present situation saddens me for obvious reasons.I am a realist but at the same time I am utterly convinced that God would tell you that that geo-column got there by the flood and 'I don't care that you thought the data pointed in a different direction'.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-11-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Nos

​

It sounds like you better start showing us what this pseudo-science is that we use.

​

A hint before you do - don't mix up the scientific evidence with the potential creative cause uncovered by the evidence or even the miraculous nature of the hypothesis being tested by scientific observation.

---

There is absolutely no verifible, credible, nor unbiased evidence in favor of Creationism yet creationists still cling to their "theory". They routinely dismiss the mountains of evidence in favor of Evolution. This is why creationism will never be anything other than religiously inspired pseudo-science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ I will admitt that we are claiming a conspiracy theory of a sort Joe. The scriptures tell us in black and white, in the context of creation and he flood that:

​

quote:

---

They will say . . . everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 2 Pet 3:4-7

---

​

So yes, mainstream science has deliberately turned its back on the proclamaiton of scripture. And those who did it were in the context of an openly Christian society.

​

At the end of the day it is a spiritual conspiracy but it has physical ramifiations. the data can be interpreted either way and we are all free to choose. There is a narrow way and a broad way.

​

PS I do love the humour of your post. The idea of Exon coming and wanting to recruit from people with PhDs in YEC is highly amusing. Or a YEC section at a geo confernce. I wonder how Austin introduces himself? 'I do global flood geology' must go down like a lead balloon. YECism as a mainstream concept is funny in the context of secular society. Although I can laugh at this the present situation saddens me for obvious reasons.

​

I am a realist but at the same time I am utterly convinced that God would tell you that that geo-column got there by the flood and 'I don't care that you thought the data pointed in a different direction'.

​

---

And you wonder why we don't take you seriously. "IT'S A CONSPIRACY I TELL YOU!" What a load. There is no conspiracy. There doesn't need to be one since there is no real evidence in favor of creationism. The only conspiracy here is that of creationists trying to pass their pseudo-science off as legitimate science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
RV

​

My personal Christian experience makes it unlikely I will disown literal creation. I personally think the data is too murky. I just don't know what would happen if the data pointed incredibly clearly to evoltuion. All I can say is what I believe now. And all I am doing on this web site is explaining why I believe the data points to creation at the gross level and can be interpreted in detail that way as well. I clainm no proof. The real reason I believe in creation is becasue of my Christian experince and almost any creaitonist will tell you that. The data itself can be interpreted either way with approximately the same success.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-10-2002]

---

Ok, so just admitted to being biased, and getting your inspiration from scripture. So what reason is there to teach creationism as science again? Real scientists can postulate theories and work them out to their logical conclusion. You have admitted to not being able to, well not quite admitted . If evolutionists present enough evidence to totally discredit creationism you will still(most likely) not be able to accept it. That is not acting in the interests of science, it is self-delusion, and something you are a victim of.What's funny is that you could probably SAY you would be willing to accept evolution IF enough evidence was presented. However its easy to say that when you believe that there will be enough evidence presented. Nothing short of god himself coming from Olympus and telling you(and all other creationists) that evolution was right would you accept it. Although the more probable response would be that the being coming to you wasn't the real god.. Self delusion has a lovely way of insulating people from realities they can't face.

nosYour post contsains no hint of pseudo science from us - just that you are prepared to state things that you can't back up. I hate pseudo science so I can gaurentee that we don't do it! If I see a hint of it in a creationist, I, like TC for example, direct them to the data and tell them to stop arguing against data. For years I told creaitonoists that the rocks demonstrate vast amounts of radiodecay for example. This arguing against data has largely been exorcised from the creaitonist community.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-13-2002]

RVGiven my bias I still think the data points about equally at both options. So therefore it should be in the curicullum. It does not have to be religiously dictated. Anyone from anywhere would tell you that life is an amazing phenomenon and has two obvious possibilities of origin.

quote:

---

I am a realist but at the same time I am utterly convinced that God would tell you that that geo-column got there by the flood and 'I don't care that you thought the data pointed in a different direction'.

---

Then did God put all the evidence in place to deliberately mislead us?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
nos

​

Your post contsains no hint of pseudo science from us - just that you are prepared to state things that you can't back up. I hate pseudo science so I can gaurentee that we don't do it! If I see a hint of it in a creationist, I, like TC for example, direct them to the data and tell them to stop arguing against data. For years I told creaitonoists that the rocks demonstrate vast amounts of radiodecay for example. This arguing against data has largely been exorcised from the creaitonist community.

​

---

Please, you're a creationsist youself. An OEC, maybe, but still a creationists. Just because you are incorporating some real science into your beliefs doesn't mean that the vast majority of the rest isn't just plain crap. Just being a creationists is enough to declare the use of pseudo-science since this is the ONLY way you can state ID and other such nonsense. Legimate science wouldn't touch this nonsense.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-13-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

quote:

---

I am a realist but at the same time I am utterly convinced that God would tell you that that geo-column got there by the flood and 'I don't care that you thought the data pointed in a different direction'.

---

​

Then did God put all the evidence in place to deliberately mislead us?

​

---

No, to test our faith in him/her/it... Afterall, god constantly needs to be reassured that we believe in him/her/it and of course god works in mysterious ways and it is not up to us poor ignorant sinners to understand this.

SchrafI believe the data is roughly split evenly on the issue. God allowed it to be ambiguous so that we would have to have faith. If that is conspiracy then, well, it is.

NosI'm a YEC.My paragraph on creationists includes me talking to myself (and hearing from others too)! But I will distinguish myself from some YECs who pretend that radioactive decay hasn't occurred or that mammal-like reptiles don't exist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Schraf

​

I believe the data is roughly split evenly on the issue. God allowed it to be ambiguous so that we would have to have faith. If that is conspiracy then, well, it is.

---

Please, the only split in this is in your mind.Why would your god do this sort of thing? Wouldn't he/she/it already know if you had faith or not? You sure have an insecure god who is always "testing" you.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-14-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Nos

​

I'm a YEC.

​

My paragraph on creationists includes me talking to myself (and hearing from others too)! But I will distinguish myself from some YECs who pretend that radioactive decay hasn't occurred or that mammal-like reptiles don't exist.

---

That is even worse because it shows that you are totally confusing about the data available. You are holding a quite contradictory view.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
RV

​

Given my bias I still think the data points about equally at both options. So therefore it should be in the curicullum. It does not have to be religiously dictated. Anyone from anywhere would tell you that life is an amazing phenomenon and has two obvious possibilities of origin.

---

Well I would say that the sheer lack of evidence leaves origins of life a philosophical question And since High School science classes won't be tackling that subject any time soon, its a question that doesn't need any contemplation(from a curriculum point of view). But origins of life is not the issue. The issue is teaching creationism as a hard science along with actual sciences. Like I said before, if a student wants to learn about creationism as part of a college cirriculum then I'm all for it. Just not at a High School level, where students are being introduced to more complex bio, chem and physics.