Just a question...

No, Itrownot, that isn't how it is.You made a claim you can't back up. It appears it may be simply a matter of you using big words like "empirical" that you don't know the meaning of.In any case, running is what a large percentage of creationists do. We come to expect it.We don't need to loosen up. What we need is for people like you, utterly ignorant of the subject, to stay out of the science class. The educational system is under constant attack by those who are ignorant and those who lie. There isn't much room for loosening up under those circumstances.

He never will get it, because it does not exist. It's nothing but a lie. A Christian lie. One which causes Christianity to fail the Matther 7:20 test.You see, these "real Christians" claim to have all this evidence for their particular interpretation of Genesis. More specifically, they claim to have a completely scientific creation model that must be given equal time with evolution in the public schools. That is the "balanced-treatment" "two model approach" of "creation science" that that movement has been pushing for and writing state legislature for every since Epperson vs Arkansas (1968) had struck down the "monkey laws" that had banned the teaching the teaching of evolution since the mid 1920's. And yet we find that absolutely none of that alleged evidence exists and that "creation model" itself does not exist. In other words, the whole of "creation science" is a fraud. A fraud that "real Christians" continue to perpetrate on the their congregations, on the public, on the web, and on this forum. And all their efforts, via the Matthew 7:20 test, reveals their Christianity to be a lie and a false religion.So, the fact that you have "found Jezuz" means nothing relative to the question of "creation science". By your statement, did you mean that you also embrace the lies of "creation science"? I know that you have stated that you believe in divine creation. However, I also know that there is no contradiction between divine creation per se and evolution. Rather, there is only contradiction between a theology that makes contrary-to-fact claims (as "creation science" does) and the real world.And I am not quite certain where you stand.

I'm confused as to why you seem to associate with each other the terms, "personal," "empirical," "anecdotal," and "unscientific."One of those does not fit like the others. Guess which one?Guess which one does not mean what you think it means?

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

The problem with the approach is that subjective evidence, like you are hinting at, is extremely vulnerable to what is known as "Confirmation Bias" - a tendency to interpret results so that they confirm your preconceptions and reject or filter negative results which contradict those preconceptions.The second problem is that amazing coincidences happen! Astonishing occurrences of coincidence that defy explanation are known by the term synchronicity - a term coined by Carl Jung I believe. I would be willing to bet that everyone here at this board can relay some coincidence happening in their lives that defy statistics.The third problem is that human by nature are narcissistic in their approach to religion. I use to know a guy who would pray while hunting. He would sit in his deer stand and pray for god to deliver him a deer. When successful he would give his "testimony" on the faithfulness of God. Hmmmmm I thought... the creator of supernovas and architect of the atom is sitting around flushing deer out for you while babies die of hunger. It was just darn incongruent for me to accept.As another example of this narcissism and synchronicity working in peoples "spiritual" lives, I encountered a fellow one time that made a very similar claim that God had provided evidence, on several occasions, beyond a doubt of God's existence and God's loving focus on him.I inquired on this evidence and he finally came back with that one time he was lost and prayed to God and God had provide a sign by shaping the sun in the form of a star - the star of David - and he was rescued. He even had a picture that he snapped of this 'sign' to prove it, which he showed me. I search the internet for a "star shaped sun" and found one almost identical and showed it him and suggested that it is an atmospheric phenomena that occurs in regions with high humidity as the sun sets. He scoffed at my image and remarked that it was mostly likely taken the same day he was lost. Ok..... I left him with his folly at that point.I am not saying your results are not necessarily genuine but just some thoughts to consider.

omg, noseyned, you apparently missed the definition of "empirical" I listed in Message 74, so i'll repeat that for you right here, exactly the way I listed it the first time: Webster says 'empirical' means "relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory." Huummm..."often without due regard for system and theory"...so maybe old Itrownot DOES know a thing or two of what 'empirical' means...actually maybe he's quite familiar with that particular term (or "big word" as you describe it), since he uses it regularly in the practice of his own profession. If you want to see "don't know", wake up and look in the mirror.BTW, you also missed the point that I'm not a proponent of creationism, so, again, you need to loosen up abit, I think.On the other hand, I must have missed the big sign over the Coffee House door that says "Dante's Inferno"...you know, "all who enter in, abandon ye all hope"...LOL. Loosen up, nosey, life is short, try to enjoy it (oh, let me guess--the nasty creationists won't let you, 'cause they're so twisted & evil)

Very observant of you, dwise1--I have not claimed creationism, yet I do believe in divine creation. For that you can go to the head of nosey ned's science class. Now recite again to the class: "...there is no contradiction between divine creation per se and evolution."I'm not here at Coffee Hour to bear my soul to a pack of jackals and braying jackasses, either, so please back off on the "found Jezuz" crap. You don't know what you're talking about. Later.

Now you need to look up "observation"."Empirical" implies observations where subjectivity has been minimized. Empirical evidence may not need to regard system or theory, but it needs to be repeatable. Unless everybody is making the same observation it isn't really empirical. If it talks like a creationist, it probably thinks like a creationist.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I stated that your personal belief in the existence of God and in divine creation is not relevant to the question of "creation science".If you disagree with my statement, then cut the crap and state your disagreement.Because obvious I do know what I'm talking about. And for whatever unknown reason, you have a problem with that but are unable to respond rationally.Now, "creation science" is just one form of anti-evolution, one that has lost much of its luster in the wake of the Arkansas and Lousiana "balanced-treatment" fiascos -- which led to the movement embracing "intelligent design" -- but remains popular with the choir and the rabble who zealously employ to in their unintentional efforts to discredit their own religion and to foster the spread of atheism.Perhaps you should be more clear about what you are talking about -- I trust that you do know what you are talking about. It's not a question of baring your soul ("bearing your soul" would mean carrying it, which makes no sense in this context), but rather of explaining just what your position is. After all, if you don't want to present and explain your position, then why post here in the first place?You believe in divine creation. OK, fine. By that statement are you trying to say that you oppose evolution? That's not very clear. Do you see a conflict between your idea of divine creation and your ideas about evolution? If you don't, then you should probably want to make that clear. If you do, then presenting what you see as that conflict would be a good way to get some constructive discussion going.So, are you going to cut the crap?

An outstanding reply, iceage! Thank you much for presenting these ideas so forthrightly. In all sincerity, I commend you for that. Quite honestly, I expected you to go right for my rather exposed jugular!Believe me, I'm well aware of the hazards associated with bringing strange personal "extrasensory perceptions of God" (if I may call it that) into one's own otherwise "normal" reality. I'm not a former atheist, but I am possessed of a critical, discerning mind, that is, I'm not one to believe for the sake of believing, nor to mess with facts to improve something's plausibility. Obviously, this is my own opinion, subject to my own bias, but, still, one should never lie to one's self, of course.Recalling my own particular "God experience", I would say that my greatest concern was & is with the "synchronicity" of it. I fully agree that truly amazing coincidences occur in life, and so I wrestled mostly with that (and still do). In the end, however, I concluded that my "God experience" was, in my judgment, genuine (as crazy as it seemed at the time). If you were to ask me what particular reasoning may have "tipped the balance" for me, I would say that I was most impressed by two factors: (1) the "events" of my God experience were set in motion (it seems to me) immediately upon my asking "God" to "manifest himself" to me (IOW, so that I might know he exists), and (2) the "events" of my God experience effectively encompassed my entire life, making sense of many details for me in one masterful orchestration, if you will. As the "events" unfolded before me, they seemed expertly designed to do so, and there was no suspect "waiting for God to act in his own time" crap. The immediacy of each event was palpable. I couldn't predict what the next logical event should be, but when each new event occurred, the sense of it became clear in relation to previous ones in the sequence. There was a kind of elegance about it that was marvelous.At the time, I also considered the possible workings of "Confirmation Bias" and the narcissistic tendency you mentioned, although not by these proper clincal names, I must admit.Your story about the hunter friend is wryly amusing--I feel sorry for him, though. Reminds me of Constantine's cross in the sky...look at all the craziness THAT brought us!PS, sorry this reply took so long, iceage, but I've been helping someone to make sense out of 8th grade math, you see...Edited by itrownot, : clarityEdited by itrownot, : not

you, dwise1, fail to understand that I don't care to debate this stuff with you, not now, not ever. FYI, I have never "found Jezuz" as you say, so please drop it. As far as I'm concerned, you're only embarrassing yourself here.I don't know how to get thru to you, dwi-se1. I don't have a disagreement with your statement, per se, because I never said that my personal belief in the existence of God and in divine creation DID have any relevance to "creation science."I got on this thread at Message 59 simply to ask a question of jar. I think i've made this abundantly clear by now, so what's not to understand? I've been replying to posts as they were sent to me. What is my crime with you? And where is the EXIT sign in this hellhole called the Coffee House?PS, thank you for pointing out my grammatical error ("bearing my soul" instead of "baring") and then turning it into some 'ad hominem' attacking my credibility as a poster. You are making my point about the jackals and jackasses on this thread, dwi-se1.Permission to exit, sir.

So is there a "Creationist model(s)" to explain any of what is seen in this universe?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What, you have a point?Bad guess, by the way.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Then why did you even inject the relatively lengthy story of your conversion? If that story had nothing to do with creation/evolution (which was what your question to jar was about), then why make any mention at all of your conversion?Remember, you are the one who brought it up! And within the context of creation/evolution. Not me, but you! If you didn't want it to happen, then why did you do it?The manner in which you were proceeding was very typical of many creationists. And at the same time you appeared to be trying to hide whether you believed that your belief in divine creation meant that you needed to oppose evolution, so I was just trying to seek clarification. And despite being very polite about it (with the exception of tossing your own crude remark back at you in order to remind you of the classic Pharisee teaching, "Do not to others that which is displeasing to yourself. That is the whole of the Law; the rest is just explanation", AKA "The Golden Rule"), in typical creationist fashion, you ducked and dodged and tried to change the subject by resort to insults and to twisting and misconstruing anything you can to make a big show of being picked on. For claiming to not be a creationist, you sure do act like one.And what kind of an insult are you implying with "dwi-se1"? And why do you think that you can only resort to insults and false crying over imagined persecution? And why such carrying on is supposed to take the place of a reasonable response?Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Then you should not be posting on a debate forum, whose express purpose is to debate "this stuff." If you post a position, expect it to be questioned and possibly attacked. That's the whole point, or else this would be like those Christian "debate" forums where there is no discussion, only preaching to the choir. You are not obligated to reply to everyone, you know. If you want us to stop, all you have to do is stop replying. It's really simple. If you don't want to debate, stop posting on a debate forum.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

The meaning of "empirical" is quite clear, jaderis. I've posted the meaning of the word twice now on this thread, yet you insist on belaboring this point even further with your inane quiz format. (oh, look, one of these terms doesn't fit like the others...) Can anyone say, "Sad and pathetic"?As far as my "not quite understanding" the meaning of the word, I've already posted the fact that I handle real empirical data and formulae all day long in the practice of my profession, and I MUST UNDERSTAND ITS MEANING in order to use it properly. On the other hand, if you actually understood the meaning of the word yourself, you'd realize what an ass you're making of yourself here. Who are you trying to fool, jaderis?