Just a thought.

"From my own meager observations I have come to a few conclusions. One. Evolution happens."
--We can agree there."Two. Organized religions are devices to control the thoughts of the masses. They will lie, cheat, bend the truth, do whatever they need to do to stay in control."
--I pity the many in which this may apply."Three. Many people need to feel they have a purpose, and having an all powerful diety that controls their destiny, and gives them a purpose makes them feel better about their lot in the universe."
--Of course it does, however, on a personal level I think it is logical to say that if this is the reason for belief then science is not the field for them."Four. Scientific Methods and Creation theory have a hard time co-existing."
--Powerful statement there, I could wonder why the scientific method is all I have gone by and succeeded in a vast amount of areas, while others require some/extensive work, or even to be addressed."Based on these observations, and what I know about the bible, I have come to this conclusion. Darwin was right, but so was the bible. It is my position however that the bible was never meant to be taken as a literal history of the earth, and man. Rather, to be used as a moral code."
--I'm glad to see you have posed it as 'your' position."What if Genisis IS right? If it is to be taken literally, then the earth was created in 6 24 hour days, all living creatures placed upon it, man and woman to rule them. However scientific methods have shown that there are fossils older than the the bible would have us believe possible."
--No not actually, in this sense, science has shown us current rates of radionucleic decay, and experimentation has shown us that geochronology is examined by isotopic ratio's whether daughter-daughter or parent-daughter, initial conditions are pre-conceived. Not that I am arguing against this, I am simply arguing against the conclusive value some will give to say that 'this is this old, so a literal reading of the bible is wrong', or something along that line."That men lived for hundreds of years."
--Evidently, this is very plausible."That a worldwide flood destroyed all life except what God(Yaweh the war god, who was kept in the arc of the covenant) deemed worthy of life. Instead consider this. The bible is in fact a bunch of parables. This would allow for much wiggle room, and make all these debates null and void."
--And my position is to say that this is your position and nothing more."Consider Genisis. Creationists now contend that the creation talks about the physical body. What if the authers were talking about the soul?"
--Actually it states both, it states that he created man and then that he breathed life into him, obviously this can if rigorously toying with it, you could come up with a lot of things."God created the earth, placed the animals upon it and let them evolve. He infused our ancestors with a soul, a soul created in his image, and that is what makes us what we are. That interpritation no longer is open to debate, and becomes a philisophical ideoligy. It also allows for evolution, which has sufficent evidence to back it up as far as I have seen and read, to hold true."
--I agree, however as for your 4th statement, 'which has sufficient evidence to back it up as far as I have seen and read to hold true', according to reading your posts since you have joined us, this is very much given credibility by what is observed today, not in the past. And what has occurred in the past and what it has left behind is open to debate and interpretable."The problem as I see it is that creationists, for all the talk about science, are using a religious book as a reference."
--Please, I urge you, find in any of my hundreds of posts where I use the bible as my evidence and my reference and I might as well create a new username in my embarrassment.--I would comment on the rest of your post, however, there are more qualified here and more will enjoy discussing the following with you. I am more into putting my time into discussing the science.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-03-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-03-2002]

Everyone is stealing my response style *grrr* my, quote and respond with a "--" format. First Philip, now redvento, G-whiz!"--I didn't say that can't, only they have a hard time. "
--I must then emphasize, I have no more of a hard time than conventional scientists."--Please tell me where I can find some research on this. As of right now the only place *I* know that says people lived for 400+ years is the bible."
--Well I can't give you research done on humans, I can show you just how 'easy' genetically, it is to have this ability is. I would direct your attention toward telomere and telomerase studies, a very nice research group which I had found is located here: http://resolution.colorado.edu/~nakamut/telomere/telomere.html--I would urge you to read abstracts to articles which they have listed and linked there."--You are right, it is my position, but it is also a position that makes sense, and allows everyone to be right."
--'Right' only by interpretation."-- I don't need to. Creationism is based on the bible no?"
--Not based on, included."If that is the case then ALL research is referenced to it."
--No, sorry."The bible says the earth is young and creationists are trying to show that to be true."
--Some yes, in this case you would be right, however, it is only their conclusions upon data which this would be a factor. Conclusions which I may differ with many creationists."If there was no bible, there would be no creation science."
--There would have been no idea of it in the first place. However as I have explained, the term 'creation science' is misleading in its name.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-06-2002]