young creation?

[nebula]

3) GDI, when someone stubs their toe

God's last name is not "Dammit"!

[nebula]

Why not when something goes wrong to blurt out, "Satan, you jerk!" or "Slimeball devil!" or something like that?

Maybe people are fearful of bringing on their representation of evil.

So, someone who doesn't believe in God finds no problem with abusing God's name.

However, this same person who likewise does not believe in Satan is fearful of reprocussion.

No that I find interesting.

Would you explain this, please?

[Old Timer]

...The cratar as we know it dates back 66 million years. Shocked quartz is deposited all around the impact site, and microspherules are also found. We measure a worldwide iridium anomoly 65 million years ago (Iridium is not naturally occuring, and only has two sources, meteorites and volcanos). These are fairly conclusive evidences that a meteor did strike, and must have caused a lot of damage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The latest is 49,000 years plus or minus 3,000 years.

Picture and info here

[ajesuschrist_mathetes]

DOES SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TODAY SHOW THAT GOD CREATED

THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH? AND WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY

ABOUT WHEN HE CREATED?

http://johnankerberg.org/Articles/science/creation.htm

[Bread_of_Life]

Shiloh

First of all I do apologize if I spoke out of turn concering the abortion issue. I should have not jumped on that as it is not germane to our conversation here. Again I am sorry for my misstatment towards you.

It's okay, thanks for the apology.

Again, I cannot reject the Word of God and still believe in God.

Firstly, Christianity is not the only religion. My point that one could be a theist and an evolution was more general than purely the Christian case of theism.

Secondly, the bible is the words of men, not God. I believe that Christians believe that these words were "inspired" by God, not written by him directly. In this way, it is a different sort of belief to, say, Islam, where the Qu'ran is meant to be a direct dictat of God.

The literal interpretation of Genesis absolutely calls for one to accept that God is the originator of the universe,

Agreed, but not the other way round.

Science, as I understand it, is in a constant state of flux. Discoveries are always being made, and new things are being learned. Science does not remain static. So, with that in mind, could it not be that science simply has not caught up with the Bible?

No. Whereas new discoveries are always being made, science is nevertheless able to disprove theories. After all, it takes all the evidence to prove a theory beyond doubt, it only takes one piece of evidence, or one prediction falsified to prove a theory wrong.

Creationism is such a theory, one that has been proven wrong through evidence. That of course, doesn't necessitate us believing in evolution either, it just shows that creationism is wrong.

then perhaps science still has more pieces of the puzzle to examine before deciding that God is not the author of creation.

Science has not decided this, rather you have decided that science has decided this.

Nebula

after all, better evidence for something else can come along at any time, you know? So, why hold too hard to one theory?

Agreed, there are other theories about what wiped the dinosaurs out. Whatever transpires to be the full picture, what will always remain is very good evidence that a meteor, or other very large object, struck the earth in Mexico 66 million years ago. Whether this partially or fully accounts for the extinction of the dinosaurs, I'll leave for geologists to argue.

Here you say it is unscientific to claim anything but natural causes for the development of organisms.

Perhaps I should use the word "non-scientific". If you claim that "god did it", it's not necessarily wrong, and science doesn't disagree with you (or agree with you). Science just doesn't comment, the comment is non-scientific, it falls outwith the remit of science.

Now you are saying it's OK to include God.

Yes, just don't pretend the inclusion is scientific. It isn't. Many scientists believe God had a hand in it, they just don't write it in scientific papers, because such beliefs are outwith the realms of science (for very good reason).

How can you "allow room for God" if you can't bring Him into the picture?

I'm not sure if you are asking this question seriously? Scientific practice is not contradictory to theism, but it doesn't involve theism. Science doesn't disprove God, but then it doesn't deal with God. Science doesn't deny God, but it doesn't investigate him either, it can't.

Allowing room for there to be a God but not investigating this possibility because it is outwith your remit is perfectly possible.

Botz

I think I see the distinction you are making between a Creationist who believes in G-d and a literal interpretation of Genesis...and a Theist who might believe in G-d but not in a literal interpretation of Genesis...I had not considered this before...I can only say that there are many people who might claim to be Theists but are so in name only.

It is easy to exclude those who disagree with you from being "real" theists. It is rather harder to prove that they are not real theists.

So for example when the study of the age of the earth is approached by the rules of Science it is deemed Scientific...but true Science is only properly interpreted by those who are true Scientists...so anyone who strays from the accepted/recommended guidelines cannot be a free-thinker or an innovator or a pioneer...just un-Scientific and therefore unbelievable.

No, what is science and what isn't isn't interpretive at all. There are fairly easy to understand guidelines as to what is and isn't science, and what does and doesn't constitute a scientific theory.

It is perfectly good to innovate and think outside the box, scientists do it all the time when they come up with new hypotheses and theories. What isn't good is to hold to a theory even when it has been disproved, or to ignore the evidence, or to disregard the scientific method. New theories are not frowned upon in science, but ignoring the scientific method is.

Now, I say that there is no way that, using the scientific method and examining the evidence, anyone could possibly come to the conclusion that the earth is 6,000 years old. This is a claim that I am making, and I'm willing to be proven wrong. If someone can come up with a genuinely scientific case, one that starts with the evidence, explains all the evidence, makes testable predictions etc, then I'll listen to them intently. This hasn't happened yet. I don't think it will. Given the evidence, I don't see how it can.

Is anybody truely neutral when they study anything? I think it is an impossibility...and would think most Evolutionists are a product of a certain system of education and an Atheistic overview

Firstly, noone is truly absolutely neutral. On the other hand, scientific organisations do not make applicants sign a pledge saying that they believe in this or that theory and never will change it. Whereas, the ICR have always asked applicants to do just that, about the literal reading of Genesis. So, whilst different scientists might have different private biases, at least they don't have to sign up to one officially and work from it.

Secondly, and this is implicit in the size and diversity of the scientific community, different scientists have different biases. Scientists come from all cultures, all societies, all religions - therefore they will all have different private biases to try to keep at bay. What that means is, when they all agree on something, it is likely that it is from evidence and science, and not shared bias. Creationists on the other hand all share exactly the same very detailed bias, belief in the literal reading of Genesis. Does this not make you suspicious? Only fundamentalist Christians believe in creationism, and even then, not all of them. I have met Christians (even evangelicals), Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Hare-Krishnas, Atheists and Buddhists who believe in evolution - all have different biases, all different religions. Yet, I have only ever met one type of creationist, with one type of bias - fundamentalist christians.

So surely Evolutionists by their very definition have always been just as guilty of going from theory to evidence...and therefore they too are un-Scientific in their approach...

No, as above.

It could be argued from this stand-point that true Science will always take the factor of G-d into consideration and therefore cannot possibly come to the right conclusions if it cuts G-d adrift...evolution seems to shield itself from this by dealing in immeasurable amounts of time and complex and unprovable theories that appear believable but prove to be extremely elusive.

Firstly, anything can be argued, no matter how incorrect.

Secondly, I would say that by defining true science as that which agrees with the bible, you are arbitrarily throwing out at any science that, although it follows the scientific method, happens to disagree with an old book. This would lead to the fallacy that Shiloh has made, accepting one science but not another, even though they follow the same method to discern the truth.

Budman

So, you're saying that by using the scientific method (principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses) it is not possible to come to any conclusions in favor of creation,

Yes.

because the creation scientists are biased to come to such conclusions?

No, because creationism isn't true. It's not possible to come to a creationist conclusion through science because creationism is false, and provably so by evidence, not because creationist are biased (although they are, it's irrelevant in this case)

But, are not evolutionary scientists biased in favor of having evidence come to conclusions in favor of evolution?

No, and I have explained this above in more detail in my reply to Botz.

Good Examples

I'm afraid I don't usually respond to links, especially ones that are this long. If you want to talk about fossils in the human lineage, in your own words, then please do start another thread on it.

Whysoblind

"If you don't draw the same conclusion as the evolutionist, it must be because you are a loony crank."

This isn't what I said, although I suppose one could argue that creationism is a type of mental illness. Not an argument I want to have here though. I simply said that there was no way creationism could be concluded scientifically.

Evolutionists get saved all the time, and then they leave their evil religioni behind afterwards.

This is irrelevant. It's a pattern most of the rest of your post follows.

There are numerous accounts of evolutionists getting saved after realizing that disasters such as Mount St. Helens, and this recent tidal wave can do "millions of years" worth of deposition, fossilizatioin, etc, in a matter of a few seconds, and doesn't require "eons".

really? The Tsunami aritifically changed the radiometric ages of the sediment it deposited to look like millions of years? Where did you read this?

I want to ask you a few questions that are sort of related to this thread, but not entirely. I'll show how they are related if and when one or more of you responds.

In actual fact, they are totally and utterly unrelated. However, out of courtesy:

1) I say "Jesus Christ" all the time as a mild swear word. In my household, this was a lot better than saying the f word, in fact, it was tolerated. You get into these habits.

2) Yes. Crime is defined as victimisation, and murder is a victimisation.

3) Yes, as above.

4) Yes, adultery is a form of breach of contract, and breaching a contract is a form of victimisation (abeit a civil one), and should be covered under the civil law.

5) Yes, lying under oath victimises whoever is involved in the trial proceeding, as well as harming society in general by undermining the institutions by which victimisation is prevented.

6) a) Do good to others, even if they don't do so to you. Do what you would want them to do to you.

although it is not a perfect description by any means.

7) Yes, for practical purposes clearly they should be, otherwise most children would be left destitute. This would victimise the child, and should thus be covered under the law.

8) Yes, this victimises or threatens to victimise other road users. Do you see a theme here?

9) Difficult one to call - but probably yes, by depriving handicapped people of civil amenities we are victimising them.

10) Yes, we are victimising the owner of the other car.

11) No, as long as all partners consent. It's not for me of course (actually, I wouldn't mind a few wives) - but as long as all parties consent, then it cannot be a victimisation. Victimisation is defined as non-consentual. Therefore consentual polygamy cannot be rightly called criminal.

12) Yes, but I don't think that we should interfere with people's lives if they don't want us to. Anything we do to help should either not direct affect the person, or involve consent.

By the way, well done, you hijacked the post from an interesting conversation. Hopefully now we've all answered we can get it back on track.

Old Timer

The latest is 49,000 years plus or minus 3,000 years.

Where did you get the impression I was talking about this cratar. Rather, I was talking about the Chicxulub crater in the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. Whereas the Barringer meteor cratar is a good example of a large object entering the atmosphere and causing a lot of energy to be released, and it is the first identified meteor crater ever, it's not the one that caused the dinosaur's extinction, or is alleged to.

Notice also in your link the reference to "Target rocks include Paleozoic carbonates and sandstones;" Was this an unintentional admission that the Paleozoic era occured, between 570 and 245 million years ago?

If you want to find out more about this, go to http://web.ukonline.co.uk/a.buckley/dino.htm. This page also describes the Barringer Crater, and compares it to the Chicxulub crater.

[Guest shiloh357]

Again, I cannot reject the Word of God and still believe in God.

Firstly, Christianity is not the only religion. My point that one could be a theist and an evolution was more general than purely the Christian case of theism.

Secondly, the bible is the words of men, not God. I believe that Christians believe that these words were "inspired" by God, not written by him directly. In this way, it is a different sort of belief to, say, Islam, where the Qu'ran is meant to be a direct dictat of God.

The Bible is not words of men. The Bible would not say the things it says, were it written by men. Man could not have created the Bible in its present form and would not create it even if he could.

The story of creation as we see in Genesis, would not have been written in its present form had it been the sole product of human imagination given what we know about the prevailing cultural ideals of the ancient Near East.

[nebula]

Nebula

after all, better evidence for something else can come along at any time, you know? So, why hold too hard to one theory?

Agreed, there are other theories about what wiped the dinosaurs out. Whatever transpires to be the full picture, what will always remain is very good evidence that a meteor, or other very large object, struck the earth in Mexico 66 million years ago. Whether this partially or fully accounts for the extinction of the dinosaurs, I'll leave for geologists to argue.

Yeah, it is kind-of fun watching these debates going back and forth and seeing "where the chips fall" so to speak.

Here you say it is unscientific to claim anything but natural causes for the development of organisms.

Perhaps I should use the word "non-scientific". If you claim that "god did it", it's not necessarily wrong, and science doesn't disagree with you (or agree with you). Science just doesn't comment, the comment is non-scientific, it falls outwith the remit of science.

Now you are saying it's OK to include God.

Yes, just don't pretend the inclusion is scientific. It isn't. Many scientists believe God had a hand in it, they just don't write it in scientific papers, because such beliefs are outwith the realms of science (for very good reason).

How can you "allow room for God" if you can't bring Him into the picture?

I'm not sure if you are asking this question seriously? Scientific practice is not contradictory to theism, but it doesn't involve theism. Science doesn't disprove God, but then it doesn't deal with God. Science doesn't deny God, but it doesn't investigate him either, it can't.

Allowing room for there to be a God but not investigating this possibility because it is outwith your remit is perfectly possible.

Try this.

Imagine you actually do believe in God - try stretching your imagination here - imagine you have a reason to believe.

(If you've seen the movie Contact, it's like how the main character found herself stuck in a position where she couldn't prove what she experienced, but she couldn't deny it.)

Imagine yourself in this position. It goes against every fiber of your being to say life evolved on its own. Yet, you are forced to because to say otherwise would be considered "non-scientific."

Can you imagine how that would make you feel?

[Botz]

Again thanks for the measured reply SA and your time.

It is easy to exclude those who disagree with you from being "real" theists. It is rather harder to prove that they are not real theists.

It was just a tentative observation...I would think it is not altogether easy for you either to determine if those you think are Theists really are what they claim to be.

It is perfectly good to innovate and think outside the box, scientists do it all the time when they come up with new hypotheses and theories. What isn't good is to hold to a theory even when it has been disproved, or to ignore the evidence, or to disregard the scientific method. New theories are not frowned upon in science, but ignoring the scientific method is.

I understand what you are saying but surely something like the Piltdown man hoax which fooled people for 40 years...or things like the Coelacanth which did not fit into the ascribed time frame are at least evidence that there may be a great many things that Scientists believe now...but will later have to abandon when they realise the evidence they had was not the whole truth.

OK this is laudable and good...and shows they are not prepared to be un-Scientific and hang on to disproven ideas...but it certainly leaves room for a healthy degree of scepticism knowing that at best Science sometimes gets things wrong.

(By the way the Piltdown man was found about 15 miles from where I live. )

Now, I say that there is no way that, using the scientific method and examining the evidence, anyone could possibly come to the conclusion that the earth is 6,000 years old. This is a claim that I am making, and I'm willing to be proven wrong. If someone can come up with a genuinely scientific case, one that starts with the evidence, explains all the evidence, makes testable predictions etc, then I'll listen to them intently. This hasn't happened yet. I don't think it will. Given the evidence, I don't see how it can.

Then are all the Creation Scientists part of some strange cult...or are they all smoking some hallucinogenic substance...is there no validity in their approach even if it is totally different from yours...I did note your passing comment about some mental abberrations which I stored away...I had never considered that...but it is just a mention as it is pertinent to what I am asking..don't feel you need to go into that side of things and I am not offended at all...probably too ignorant to be.

Firstly, noone is truly absolutely neutral. On the other hand, scientific organisations do not make applicants sign a pledge saying that they believe in this or that theory and never will change it. Whereas, the ICR have always asked applicants to do just that, about the literal reading of Genesis. So, whilst different scientists might have different private biases, at least they don't have to sign up to one officially and work from it.

Well I can understand the approach by the Creationists...like I said they don't consider true Science to be separate from what they believe is a true Biblical interpretation..at least you know where they are coming from and what you get.

I would still think that within the Scientific learning establishments it must be almost an unwritten law that all who go on into these fields agree with all the major scientific findings.

Secondly, and this is implicit in the size and diversity of the scientific community, different scientists have different biases. Scientists come from all cultures, all societies, all religions - therefore they will all have different private biases to try to keep at bay. What that means is, when they all agree on something, it is likely that it is from evidence and science, and not shared bias. Creationists on the other hand all share exactly the same very detailed bias, belief in the literal reading of Genesis. Does this not make you suspicious? Only fundamentalist Christians believe in creationism, and even then, not all of them. I have met Christians (even evangelicals), Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Hare-Krishnas, Atheists and Buddhists who believe in evolution - all have different biases, all different religions. Yet, I have only ever met one type of creationist, with one type of bias - fundamentalist christians.

I do not shy away from the word Fundamentalist when used in its right context...I think that it has had a bad press due to some eminent charlatans who have been splashed across the headlines over the years...and also with the rise of Islam it immediately denotes some unacceptable extremism. When it was first used it made the distinction between those who believed the Bible literally and those who didn't and could happily compromise on the humanistic theory of evolution. Years ago it used to be an accepted fact that a Christian believed what the Bible said.

I am fairly suspicious of lots of evidence...or unsure about it Creationist or otherwise...perhaps you are too secure amongst 'birds of a feather'.

Even though I am very much in that camp...it does not mean I take everything a Creation Scientist says as verbatim I have read very little...I am sure they have had their share of exaggerations and jumping to conclusions and going beyond the data provided...and if you like...even being un-scientific. I have many things on the back-boiler in my head that have not yet made sense..although I might believe their basic outline.

Firstly, anything can be argued, no matter how incorrect.

You are not wrong...I remember something about a garage and a unicorn....

Secondly, I would say that by defining true science as that which agrees with the bible, you are arbitrarily throwing out at any science that, although it follows the scientific method, happens to disagree with an old book. This would lead to the fallacy that Shiloh has made, accepting one science but not another, even though they follow the same method to discern the truth.

What you may see as a fairly insignificant 'old book' many of us see as the inspired 'word of G-d' and have believed its pages and been inspired and encouraged, challenged and convicted by all that it contains...and our lives are in a sense interwoven into the very fabric of the Scriptures...

It 100% shows that there is no place whatsover for evolutionary theory concerning the origins of men...therefore despite the brilliance of the contrary evidence and what might appear to be proof...somehow the best Scientific minds in the world have made a huge error...based on this Christians would face other humanistic Scientific evidence with great caution...which obviously you realise.

This is not based on burying ones head in the sand nor of ignoring sound evidence...such as the law of gravity...if I took a pen and let go it will fall to the ground...if I said no it will not...then I am probably entering the Twilight zone...whether or not the law of gravity is stated in the Bible.

[UndecidedFrog]

This is just my opinion. You don't have to accept it if you dislike it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian.

Dear nebula,

So, someone who doesn't believe in God finds no problem with abusing God's name.

However, this same person who likewise does not believe in Satan is fearful of reprocussion.

No that I find interesting.

Would you explain this, please?

Sure, I don't mind explaining it. You first asked a general question why some people abuse god's name. You then asked a general question why some do not abuse satan's name.

In both cases I answered.

And now you ask why these general some people all of a sudden are now atheists (who don't believe in god or satan) abuse both god's name and not satan's name.

I think you misunderstood my original responses to your first and second questions. I was responding to the general some people, and not particularly atheists like me. If you wish me to answer specifically regarding atheists, my first response would be:

Atheists usually do not abuse any deity's name due to the fact that they do not believe in them. However, depending on the cultural context, it is not hard to find some atheists who say examples 1, 2, or 3.

My response to your second question if specific to atheists would be:

Atheists usually do not abuse satan's name due to the fact that they do not believe in satan.

I hope this clarifies the case.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

[ayin jade]

Atheists usually do not abuse any deity's name due to the fact that they do not believe in them.

And yet I hear many atheists abuse God's or Jesus' name just to mock Christians, or to express anger against the Lord, even though they dont believe in Him. They dont even see how much they fight against Him.