QUESTIONS

quicksink you need to grow up or something i cant bear to read your posts. im not kidding. all you do is whine or something. the majority of the stuff you say has no supporting evidence and you dodge a lot of things. i also doubt if you know the evolutionary theory or have even looked at a bible.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

why don't you give me an example...it seems to me that you can't stand somone who is actually presenting facts.and psi'll try ot grow up- give me a decade or so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"I suppose it depends on how you want to define "Christian", but I would say that only a small percentage of Christians are brought up as Biblical fundamentalists. Far fewer than half."
--Thats because of the statment I just made, if they have the interest, they are going to get sucked into what they are teaching them.[/QUOTE]

​

Did you ever think that most people use the Bible for the moral lessons it provides, not for the literal truth about the natural world that you want to find in it?

​

quote:

---

"Creation science isn't science, TC, no matter how much you want to be."
--If you wan't to make a relevant statement, I have given you the way that creation science is, if your going to argue with me, you must argue with that model.

---

​

I have done so, over and over, for months previous to this, and you have yet to make anything close to a good argument in favor of your position. Yet you keep repeating the notion that Creation "science" is science. I am not going to keep banging my head against this particular brick wall. If you can show me that Creation "science" is not deferential to the bible and based on religion, that it makes testable predictions (hypothese), has positive evidence to support it, and has potential falsifications which haven't already been falsified, then you can say that Creation 'science' is really science.

​

(This should be easy to find, BTW, on AiG or ICR if they are actually doing science.)

​

Then, once you have done that, then we can look at evidence which does not depend upon the ToE, et. al., being falsified. Any scientific notion should stand on it's own.

​

quote:

---

"Why is it bad to be biased in favor of the evidence?"
--This is not what I have said, I said that to most people a naturalistic explination is more attractive than a supernatural explination,

---

​

How is this different from holding a bias in favor of the evidence?

​

Also, I disagree that most people want there to be a naturalistic explanation for things. It goes against our essential self-centered nature. People throughout history have tended to immediately make up a supernatural explanation for every natural occurance that they couldn't explain, and it almost always reflected on us. Gods caused lightning because of something humans did. Gods caused floods because of something humans did. God caused locusts because of something humans did. God created AIDS because of something humans did. And on and on.

​

The idea that naturalistic phenomena have naturalistic explanations is relatively new, and goes against human nature, in a way. We want there to be magic, and to be special. We don't like the mundane and explainable.

​

quote:

---

and I have made the assertion that there is much les of the supernatural than one would think. This is because everything can be explained in naturalistic terms accept say, the origins, or the resurrection, or something of that likeness.

---

​

You have done a lot of "explaining" about how the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and a lot of "explaining" about flood geology. However, your "explanations" are not likely or reasonable, and require a whole lot of "Godidit" to work.

​

quote:

---

"Really? Attention from whom? The public or scientists?"
--Both.

---

​

Attention from the public is meaningless as to scientific validity.

​

I'd like to know in what way are real scientists are having their "toes stepped on" by Creation "scientists", and in what way?

​

[QUOTE]"Poor, maligned Creationists.

​

They say they want to do science but can't seem to stop referring to their Christian Bibles."
--This is science. By your logic, if there even was evidence of a young earth, it would not be plausable because of your pre-conceived idea that it is not possible because we cannot give god a foot-hold.
[/b]

---

Evidence for a young earth should be evident without reference to God at all. That is the whole point, and that is why Creation 'science" isn't science. Science is evidenciary in nature, not revelatory.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-10-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by quicksink:
TC- could you tell me why the most experienced scientists laugh at creationism?

---

id just like to show everyone this again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
id just like to show everyone this again.

---

do you have a response, or are you making a mockery of me...it seems you're more concerned with critisizing my debating than actually debating.your post in "atheism" is evidence that you prefer to make wild claims without any proof.

quote:

---

Originally posted by quicksink:
why don't you give me an example...

​

it seems to me that you can't stand somone who is actually presenting facts.

​

and ps

​

i'll try ot grow up- give me a decade or so.

---

well you guys dont think the bible is credible and i dont know too many other things that are an accurate history of Jesus's time. Also the other sources that we do present you falsify by making assumptions based on his credentials and whether or not their pro evolution. you guys dont want admit anything, and we usually will if you provide us undeniable evidence. so what if they bible did mean that the earth was flat, i dont know any christian that believes that just because they bible can be taken to mean that.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

​

[This message has been edited by KingPenguin, 03-10-2002]

once again, you are ranting, much like most creationists i've chatted with"stop ignoring the evidence!" they say"you approach things with a narrow-mind and dismiss our evidence out of hand!"answer this simple question, kp- how did the flood organize the fossil strata like it did???

quote:

---

Originally posted by quicksink:
once again, you are ranting, much like most creationists i've chatted with

​

"stop ignoring the evidence!" they say

​

"you approach things with a narrow-mind and dismiss our evidence out of hand!"

​

answer this simple question, kp- how did the flood organize the fossil strata like it did???

---

since your dying to know ill try my hardest to come up with reasonable evidence for that. i dont believe that the flood organized the fossil strata. but then again you could call it luck.
ps. ill try to come up with it tommorow. its just about bed time. :-)------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

KP- well you guys dont think the bible is credible and i dont know too many other things that are an accurate history of Jesus's time.We don't think the bible is credible as a source of scientific knowledge. But I think even most atheists would agree that many of the moral teachings have validity.Other than a few place names, I know of nothing in the bible that can be verified with scientific evidence. There is no evidence of Adam and Eve/garden of Eden. There is no evidence of the flood. There is no evidence of the Exodus. There is no evidence for the great age of the Patriarchs. There is no evidence for the great kingdoms of David and Solomon. Etc, Etc, Etc. Nor do we have any evidence for the myriad other religious doctrines from around the world.This is an essay to get to started. Its not too long and will give you a place to start your own search. http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htmThis one is another short essay you might find interesting: http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/jerques.htmIf you want a little more detail, try this site: http://www.bibleorigins.net/archaeologydatestexts.htmlNone of this should cause you any grief as far as your religious inclinations go. But it should make you reflect upon YOUR particular interpretation of the bible. You are setting yourself up for failure by following the false dichotomy espoused by YEC. It is not an either/or proposition.On the other hand, we have very detailed evidence from other societies, that lived through the time of the flood. We have very detailed geologic evidence that a world wide flood never occurred. We have a very detailed sorting of the fossil record within the geology. We have observed evolution in action, about 100 unique speciation events in just the last 20 years. Etc, Etc, Etc. Now think about it, in the 150 years of evidence gathering, emergence of new sciences, and increases in our ability to measure, observe, and experiment, all this new knowledge has leant additional strength in the ToE. Not a single piece of evidence has been discovered that would cause the falsification of the theory (although adjustments have been made, good science).Therefore, the reasonable person (the scientist in this case), must conclude on the basis of current evidence, that the bible is not a reliable source of scientific evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
since your dying to know ill try my hardest to come up with reasonable evidence for that. i dont believe that the flood organized the fossil strata. but then again you could call it luck.
ps. ill try to come up with it tommorow. its just about bed time. :-)

​

---

so hold on- you don't believe that the flood organized the strata, even though, according to creationists, it was responsible for the fossilization of all fossils today.and then you dismiss the whole thing as luck?!? so basically, whenever science presents some solid evidence, you dismiss it as luck???? well kp, please, think rationally here. you're saying that "luck" would so perfectly create the strata so that not one fossil is out of the ordinary or out of place...c'mon now- let's not be stupid now.

QS: Please tell me what you think the fossil record shows? I'm not being smart (read: sarcastic), I just want to understand your position so that I can respond properly.

primitive species are found lower in the strata, and more modern and "advanced" are found further up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by quicksink:
primitive species are found lower in the strata, and more modern and "advanced" are found further up.

---

The fossil record shows nothing. You make an assumption and seek to understand the fossil record in light of that assumption. Suppose you were on a dig 2000 years from now, and you discovered, in different strata, a Shetland pony, a quarterhorse, a thorough-bred, and a Clydesdale. Being completely honest, wouldn't you try to arrange them in some sort of evolutionary fashion - as though the big horse evolved from the smaller one? Now, given the assumption of evolution, that arrangement would come easy. The fossil record has not showed it to be true, it is merely consistent with your assumption. I mean, after all, the fossils could be related. But the fossils themselves do not teach us the relation. Would you admit that the assumption has to be made?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
The fossil record shows nothing. You make an assumption and seek to understand the fossil record in light of that assumption. Suppose you were on a dig 2000 years from now, and you discovered, in different strata, a Shetland pony, a quarterhorse, a thorough-bred, and a Clydesdale. Being completely honest, wouldn't you try to arrange them in some sort of evolutionary fashion - as though the big horse evolved from the smaller one? Now, given the assumption of evolution, that arrangement would come easy. The fossil record has not showed it to be true, it is merely consistent with your assumption. I mean, after all, the fossils could be related. But the fossils themselves do not teach us the relation. Would you admit that the assumption has to be made?

---

Yes, you are quite right its all about interpretation of data.Evolutionary theory is suported by the fossil record.
The fossil record fits the facts, but was NOT the basis of
evolutionary theory.In the 'Falsifying Creation' thread I have attempted to show that
the YEC, literal interpretation of genesis, does NOT fit the
observed fossil record. I beleive I have shown why this is the
case.Without evolutionary or creationist theory super-imposed::Fossils are found in geological strata.Organisms classified in biology as simpler (not in evolutionary
terms I hasten to add) are found lower.Certain types of organism are ALWAYS found below certain others
without exception.Animals which exist now are not found in that form in the fossil
record (with one or two exceptions e.g. ceolocanths).We can say without interpretation or inference, that those fossils
at lower levels were burried earliest.We can infer from the fossil record that some animals, and types
of animals existed at times when others did not.That last statement is sufficient to invalidate a literal
interpretation of the creation in genesis.We must then seek some alternative explanation.We can observe that some animal forms are similar, yet subtely
different from those above and below them in the fossil record,
and that these types never appear as contempories.It is NOT just about size as in your horsey example. It is
skeletal similarity and apparent progression that tends to
support evolutionary theory.And no, in all honesty I wouldn't put forward an evolutionary
scenario in the 2000 year example you give. I would (as
modern archeologists do) seek evidence within the layers (and
they would be layers in a mere 2000 years) which corroborated the
age. Beyond that, I would seek the same sequence elsewhere, and if
I could not find it, would not make any wild claims based upon
a single observation.The fossil record is globally consistent, not just one or two
isolated examples.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
The fossil record shows nothing.

---

This is an interesting assertion. On what do you base it? What is your experience with the fossil record?

quote:

---

You make an assumption and seek to understand the fossil record in light of that assumption.

---

Not really. You forget that there is history here. In the early days of geology, the fossil record was first observed. At that time, this was unexplainable. Then evolution came along, and there was a lot of the "why-didn't-I-think-of-that?" syndrome. Nowadays, yes, we use evolution as the basis for our interpretation. But remember it wasn't always that way, and if there were credible inconsistencies we would move on to another theory. This has not happened.

quote:

---

Suppose you were on a dig 2000 years from now, and you discovered, in different strata, a Shetland pony, a quarterhorse, a thorough-bred, and a Clydesdale. Being completely honest, wouldn't you try to arrange them in some sort of evolutionary fashion - as though the big horse evolved from the smaller one?

---

Actually, not. Because they would be in the same strata. Also, this is not a good analogy because the various breeds you refer to were genetically engineered. In a natural system all horses would start to look alike unless some were genetically isolated and took on different characteristics. In that case, eventually, they would become a different species.

quote:

---

Now, given the assumption of evolution, ...

---

Which would be valid, since it has been shown to work.

quote:

---

...that arrangement would come easy. The fossil record has not showed it to be true, it is merely consistent with your assumption. I mean, after all, the fossils could be related. But the fossils themselves do not teach us the relation. Would you admit that the assumption has to be made?

---

Not a bad assumption, really. Evolution has been shown to work. It would be a justifiable to think that it would work in new situations as well. Now, does the assumption of evolution guarantee that we can make a correct interpretation of the evolution of the horse? Of course not. There is usually not enough data to be certain and future discoveries will clarify the picture. On the other hand, your scenario is not valid for the reasons stated.