young creation?

[Bread_of_Life]

nebula

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."

Which scientist has been forced to do this? Can you produce any paper that claims that natural selection is the *one*, the *only* driver for change within evolution?

I submit that you cannot, because no scientist has ever been forced to say that natural forces are the only ones that shaped life. Rather, natural forces are the only ones discussed within science, because supernatural forces, if there are any, would be outside of science's remit.

Are you in danger here of fighting a strawman scientific establishment, that forces theists into saying that God wasn't involved?

Botz

Again thanks for the measured reply SA and your time.

It's my pleasure.

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.

No, it isn't, it is very difficult to verify what someone really thinks inside. That's why the idea can be so insidious, that anyone who disagrees with you on a particular point of religion is just lying, or is fooling themselves. It's hard to disprove or prove, it will always remain a murky allegation hanging over the argument.

Suffice to say, there are many emminent people who claim to be theists who believe in evolution (and by emminent, I mean bishops in the CoE for example).

I understand what you are saying but surely something like the Piltdown man hoax which fooled people for 40 years...

Perhaps you ought to take a step back and think what statement implies. You're right of course, that Piltdown Man was a forgery, a hoax. And you're right, people were fooled for 40 years (although, it must be said, they didn't have modern methods of testing finds that make hoaxes easier to find these days).

But what does that really mean? What does it imply about science? Well, for a start, it implies that some people who claim to be scientists are really liars. But does it imply anything else?

Well, yes, it implies that even after 40 years, in a science where scientists are accused of being biased and religious, that scientists were *still* testing the evidence to make sure it was bona fide, to make sure it wasn't fraudulent. Now, here creationists have to make up their minds. Do scientists just blindly accept anything that seems to back their theory without checking, and hold it as an article of faith, or do they continually check up on things, even 40 years after their discovery, to make more and more certain that they are real?

Sure, some "scientists" have been caught lying. But the point is, they were caught, often by astonishingly details and costly testing of their "evidence". And, most importantly, they were ejected from the scientific community, and never allowed back. Can creationists say the same - they lie and twist evidence regularly, in such a way that they would be expelled immediately from any scientific establishment, yet I still see the same names cropping up. Science is all about integrity, and especially the integrity of the evidence, and Piltdown man shows just how far and how long scientists are willing to go to verify their evidence.

or things like the Coelacanth which did not fit into the ascribed time frame

Sorry, the Coelacanth is an example of a "fossil animal", one that has not changed very much (or indeed at all) from the last known fossil. In fact, the Coelacanth was thought to be extinct until it was caught in modern times, making the find very very rare, and quite astonishing.

Scientists usually state the Coelacanth (as well as a few other fossil animals) as proof that evolution can go through long periods of stasis. I don't see what it has to do with evidence not fitting or fraud being committed?

but it certainly leaves room for a healthy degree of scepticism knowing that at best Science sometimes gets things wrong.

A skepticism which scientists clearly hold to themselves, given their level of testing of the evidence.

Then are all the Creation Scientists part of some strange cult...or are they all smoking some hallucinogenic substance...

Probably more the former than the latter. Firstly, there is no such thing as a creation scientist, they do not follow the scientific method, therefore they cannot be scientists, not in the creationist sense anyway.

Secondly, the most probable answer is that they are so attached to their beliefs in biblical literalism and inerrancy that they are willing to lie, invent, twist and misquote, in fact they will do just about anything to convince themselves and others of the truth of the bible, with or without the evidence. So I suppose like I said, probably more the former than the latter.

is there no validity in their approach even if it is totally different from yours...

No, none. If they do not follow the scientific method, it is extremely unlikely that they will come to the truth of the matter. I am happy to discuss the philosophy of science with you, and why the scientific method is as it is if you wish, in another thread.

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.

Not really, it is an unwritten law that you agree and understand the scientific method, and will follow it strictly. But if everyone had to agree with everything, we would never move forward.

After all, what scientists spend most of their time and effort doing in science is to try to disprove other people's theories. Science is mostly about disproof, because once a theory has been disproved, another one that better explains all the evidence including the new evidence used to disprove the old one will come in as a replacement, and our knowledge will be further enhanced.

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.

What is "humanistic evolution" when it's at home? Humanism is a theory of ethics, evolution is a theory of science and fact, how can the two possibly be connected? Science and ethics, like science and theism, are two different areas of study, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

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'.

Firstly, I'm on this bulletin board, and it became very clear very quickly that I am not with "birds of a feather".

Secondly, I am not the one who meets with fellow believers every Sunday and sings about how happy I am to believe, and gets sermons about how great it is to believe in what I believe in.

Thirdly, scientists are not all "birds of a feather". In fact, there is considerable disagreement on scientific matters and of course on religion, ethics etc. Compare that with the creationist community, who all have to believe in the literal bible to get in, who are not allowed to deviate from this belief. Perhaps then it is creationists who surround themselves with people who agree with them?

Lastly, this doesn't really ammount to a cogent argument against anything I am saying or have said - the fact that you are suspicious that I have spent too much time around people who disagree with me is one thing - you proving that I am wrong is quite another.

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.

Given this, then why do you trust any science? Why do you board a plane, why do you trust biblical archaeology etc.

Remember, if science has made this massive mistake, and somehow the mountains of evidence are all false or misleading, then why should we trust *anything* that science has to say?

After all, evolutionary theory is based on the same method as radiometric dating, which is based on the same method as the rest of science. If the method can make such a massive massive mistake with evolution, why should we trust it at all? Why should we take seriously anything that scientists have to say?

Also, given that the method is flawed, it is incumbent upon us to find the flaw, and come up with a new method. Could you take a stab at this?

This is not based on burying ones head in the sand nor of ignoring sound evidence...

Well, yes, it is based on this. Because the scientific method is based on evidence.

Let me ask you a question Botz. If I could make a prediction about the future evidence, one I couldn't possibly have known in advance, very very specific, one that would be extremely unlikely to be true by coincidence - a prediction based on the theory of evolution - and at some later time it came true, would you then believe me?

You mentioned gravity you see, and you said you'd be entering the twilight zone to deny it when you saw a pen falling to the ground, whether or not it was in the bible. So I thought, what can I do along these lines in terms of evolutionary theory? Well, the best evidence in any theory is prediction - we can actually see predictions coming true just as we can see a pen falling to the ground. Would this convince you? Or would you say "maybe Nikolai is the devil, maybe he has knowledge of the future, maybe he's got spiritual powers"? Would you enter the twilight zone to shelter your beliefs from disproof?

Shiloh

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.

How do you think the book was written then? Was it directly dictated by God like the Qu'ran?

[nebula]

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.

Now 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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're confusing me Frog.

This is just my opinion.

[nebula]

nebula

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."

Which scientist has been forced to do this? Can you produce any paper that claims that natural selection is the *one*, the *only* driver for change within evolution?

I submit that you cannot, because no scientist has ever been forced to say that natural forces are the only ones that shaped life. Rather, natural forces are the only ones discussed within science, because supernatural forces, if there are any, would be outside of science's remit.

Are you in danger here of fighting a strawman scientific establishment, that forces theists into saying that God wasn't involved?

I never got the hang of what is meant by "strawman," so I cannot answer your question because I do not understand what you are asking.

If I want to be scientifically accurate, I have to say, "This animal evolved from this other animal."

For me to say so, I, in my heart and mind, am denying the hand of a Creator in the process.

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh

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.

How do you think the book was written then? Was it directly dictated by God like the Qu'ran?

S.A.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: I Timothy 3:16

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. II Peter 1:21

Again, knowing the culture of the time period reveals many things about the Bible. There are ideals about the Near East that run in contradistinction to the Scriptures. Men are commanded in the Scriptures to do things contrary to what they would have done if left to their own. Men are commanded even the OT to treat women with honor and dignity. In the Bible, women are not chattel, or property. While the Bible maintains the Patriarchal framework prevalent in the Near East, it draws the line at mistreating or demeaning women.

People are convinced that the Law code of the OT is based upon the older Code of Hammurabi, but the Torah contains mercy and forgiveness that the Code of Hammurabi does not. Furthermore the Torah offers a relationship with God, and promise of future redemption. Again, something that the code of Hammurabi does not offer, and in fact, would not be found in the Torah had the Torah been conjured up in the imagination of men.

The Torah offers no formula for personal success or instruction on how to "strike it rich." The Torah is completely extroverted. The Torah does not contain ONE commandment on how to better oneself. Rather it teaches us how to be a blessing to greater society. It is not a grocery list of rules as seen in the Code of Hammurabi, but is a blue print for living. It teaches us how to love God, and how to love man.

We even see things in the New Testament that go against the prevailing culture. When Jesus was resurrected, the first witnesses of his resurrection were women. Had this been written out of the prevailing culture, it would have been a man who would have been the first witness, since men were considered the more reliable witnesses.

As to the creation, the prevailing culture of the Near East generally gave preeminence to the sun. It would have been the sun or "sun god" that would have done the creating, and man would have been the first, and not the last in the order of creation.

I think it also instructive to look at the brazen honesty of the Bible. The Bible does not gloss over the sins of its most notable heroes. Unlike say, the Egyptian culture which only recorded the victories and greatness of its heroes such as the Phaoroahs, the Bible records how even the most righteous failed. Abraham, Noah, David, Elijah, Solomon, Samson, just to name a few, failed the Lord. David committed adultery and then committed murder to cover it up. Solomon was the wisest man in the world, yet fell to idol worship, and became senile in his old age. Abraham lied about his wife and even slept with her handmaiden to produce offspring. Elijah fell into deep depression and Noah ended up getting drunk and cursing one of his own sons. Samson allowed lust to cloud his thinking and ended up paying the ultimate price with his very life. The Bible also records how many times God punished with great severity his Chosen People, Israel. Had one of the "Chosen People" been the author, we would, most likely, never have read about their failures and defeats.

Over and over, the Bible tells how great men and women fell, but yet they were never outside God's mercy if they chose to appropriate it. The Bible reveals to us a God who calls us sinners, but is not willing that we should remain as such. He does not merely condemn mankind's failures, he does not condemn us as unredeemable, but reaches out to man with redemption and offers it to him as a gift; a gift He payed for with the blood of His own Son. Man merely needs to swallow his pride, and accept it.

The Bible does not feed man's pride. Rather it pretty much pops the balloon of his ego. The Bible tells us that we are born sinners and are basically evil. The Bible tells us that our hearts are continually evil. We have to teach our children what is right. We don't have to teach them to bite, cuss, spit, and mistreat others. We don't have to teach them to lie, they will do all of that on their own. Good values, do not come naturally to us. The Bible teaches us that we are in need of a Savior, since we are helpless to change our sinfulness before God. The Bible tells us that all of our valiant efforts and doing good, are worthless before God, since everything we do is tainted with our sin. No amount of character reformation will improve our lot in the presence of a holy God.

Left to his own, man would never have written THAT kind of Bible. In fact, of all the religious books belonging to the major religions, it is the Bible that is the most hotly contested. NO other book has been the target of world hatred like the Bible. No other books has had its claims tested the way the Bible has because no other book makes the claims the Bible makes. It is unique in its construction, unique in its claims, and unique with regard to the degree of contempt mankind has had for it.

[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,

Thanks for your response, and for clarifying your question. You asked:

All right - let me ask a blunt question.

Since you abuse the names of many dieties on purpose - do you ever abuse the name of Satan likewise?

Usually, I take the name of deities in vain in order to communicate effectively with the respective believer with which I am communicating. For example, it doesn't matter much if I say, "May Shiva pull out your hair!" to a jew. And if I say, "May Zeus strike you down with lightning!" to a hindu, it probably would not make much difference to the hindu. I think you get my drift here.

Along the same lines, I only take satan's name in vain when I am speaking with certain types (non-Laveyian) of satanists.

I hope this clarifies as well.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

[Botz]

Hi SA. (quotes aren't working..I will use colour)

I have been thinking about much on this thread and have been reading up a little to try and better acquaint myself with some of the things being discussed...not that I don't grasp the basic concepts...but because I am surprised at some of the claims you make about the exactitude and honesty of Science per se and was not aware that you were truely echoing the faith/credo/stance of people like Richard Dawkins or Professor Richard Lewontin. (I am currently reading the Blind Watchmaker amongst other things.)

Suffice to say, there are many emminent people who claim to be theists who believe in evolution (and by emminent, I mean bishops in the CoE for example).

That is true...however I don't take much heart from that especially considering the mixed signals coming from the present Archbishop of Canterbury...but I take the point that a Christian may believe in G-d and evolution despite my own personal misgivings about such a compromise.

"... You're right of course, that Piltdown Man was a forgery, a hoax. And you're right, people were fooled for 40 years (although, it must be said, they didn't have modern methods of testing finds that make hoaxes easier to find these days).

But what does that really mean? What does it imply about science? Well, for a start, it implies that some people who claim to be scientists are really liars. But does it imply anything else?

Well, yes, it implies that even after 40 years, in a science where scientists are accused of being biased and religious, that scientists were *still* testing the evidence to make sure it was bona fide, to make sure it wasn't fraudulent. Now, here creationists have to make up their minds. Do scientists just blindly accept anything that seems to back their theory without checking, and hold it as an article of faith, or do they continually check up on things, even 40 years after their discovery, to make more and more certain that they are real?

Sure, some "scientists" have been caught lying. But the point is, they were caught, often by astonishingly details and costly testing of their "evidence". And, most importantly, they were ejected from the scientific community, and never allowed back. Can creationists say the same - they lie and twist evidence regularly, in such a way that they would be expelled immediately from any scientific establishment, yet I still see the same names cropping up. Science is all about integrity, and especially the integrity of the evidence, and Piltdown man shows just how far and how long scientists are willing to go to verify their evidence.

I would have thought other implications were that for 40 years Scientists were blinded to the obvious nature of the fraud because their own pre-conceptions made them jump to un-scientific conclusions...therefore what it says about Science is that there is no guarantee that true science will not be misused if it seems to fit certain pre-determined criteria....whatever camp that scientist belongs to.

Also to imply that they did not have todays modern methods of testing is certainly true but it obscures the fact that the jaw bone of the Orangutang had its teeth ground down to resemble a humans and the file marks were therefore patently obvious amongst other things.

Sorry, the Coelacanth is an example of a "fossil animal", one that has not changed very much (or indeed at all) from the last known fossil. In fact, the Coelacanth was thought to be extinct until it was caught in modern times, making the find very very rare, and quite astonishing.

Scientists usually state the Coelacanth (as well as a few other fossil animals) as proof that evolution can go through long periods of stasis. I don't see what it has to do with evidence not fitting or fraud being committed?

I just used it as an example because from what I know it was believed to have been extinct for 70 million years..and the point being that Scientists were wrong in their original assumptions of its premature demise that's all.

Then are all the Creation Scientists part of some strange cult...or are they all smoking some hallucinogenic substance.

Probably more the former than the latter. Firstly, there is no such thing as a creation scientist, they do not follow the scientific method, therefore they cannot be scientists, not in the creationist sense anyway.

Secondly, the most probable answer is that they are so attached to their beliefs in biblical literalism and inerrancy that they are willing to lie, invent, twist and misquote, in fact they will do just about anything to convince themselves and others of the truth of the bible, with or without the evidence. So I suppose like I said, probably more the former than the latter.

I beg to differ on the term Creation Scientist but until I am better informed I will call them Creationists....and from what I have so far read they do follow the same science but from a different perspective.

I am sure some Creationists have jumped to certain conclusions before and maybe there are several bad'uns amongst them...but it would be pretty self-defeating for them to present easily disprovable evidence and think that Christians are going to believe it lock stock and barrel just because they themselves are Christians...or Fundamentalist if you like....we are not all brain dead...and we do weigh up the evidence as well as we are able.

You don't seem very fond of Creationists to say the least...and seem to tar them all with the same brush...have none of them ever had any redeeming things to say from a scientific point of view that are challenging and provoking?

is there no validity in their approach even if it is totally different from yours..

No, none. If they do not follow the scientific method, it is extremely unlikely that they will come to the truth of the matter. I am happy to discuss the philosophy of science with you, and why the scientific method is as it is if you wish, in another thread.

Does part of the Scientific method mean leaving out G-d ?

(If you want to start the other thread I am always happy to join you...but there is no rush...whenever you have the time)

What is "humanistic evolution" when it's at home? Humanism is a theory of ethics, evolution is a theory of science and fact, how can the two possibly be connected? Science and ethics, like science and theism, are two different areas of study, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

I will try to be clearer with my terminology in future although I would contend that in practice there can be a 'merging' of theism and science...just as there can be a strong case for determining that religion and politics can mix...and that they are not mutually exclusive.

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'.

Firstly, I'm on this bulletin board, and it became very clear very quickly that I am not with "birds of a feather".

True.

Secondly, I am not the one who meets with fellow believers every Sunday and sings about how happy I am to believe, and gets sermons about how great it is to believe in what I believe in.

You make it sound almost painful.

Thirdly, scientists are not all "birds of a feather". In fact, there is considerable disagreement on scientific matters and of course on religion, ethics etc. Compare that with the creationist community, who all have to believe in the literal bible to get in, who are not allowed to deviate from this belief. Perhaps then it is creationists who surround themselves with people who agree with them?

Now you make it sound as if Creationists never disagree with one another...and ultimately the implication is that Evolutionists are more human/normal.

Of course you have to believe their way to become one of them that is what sets them apart..they obviously felt the need for the separation.

Lastly, this doesn't really ammount to a cogent argument against anything I am saying or have said - the fact that you are suspicious that I have spent too much time around people who disagree with me is one thing - you proving that I am wrong is quite another.

You mistook the intent of my words.

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.

Given this, then why do you trust any science? Why do you board a plane, why do you trust biblical archaeology etc.

Remember, if science has made this massive mistake, and somehow the mountains of evidence are all false or misleading, then why should we trust *anything* that science has to say?

After all, evolutionary theory is based on the same method as radiometric dating, which is based on the same method as the rest of science. If the method can make such a massive massive mistake with evolution, why should we trust it at all? Why should we take seriously anything that scientists have to say?

Also, given that the method is flawed, it is incumbent upon us to find the flaw, and come up with a new method. Could you take a stab at this?

You are assuming I think science is at fault...I don't...I believe a certain ideology prevalent amongst scientists in this and several instances leads them to the wrong conclusions and they have interpreted the evidence according to their expectancy..it is the same accusation you would level at the Creationist.

I don't believe automatically what any Scientist says...and as you pointed out previously their theories only last until they are disproved...so Science is perfect but Scientists are not because by nature they interpret.

The only *stab* I could suggest is to put G-d into the equation and see what the Bible has to say on these things...I am not qualified to give the sort of scientific answer you might hope for...naturally I will get accused of only wanting to hear that which agrees with my religious convictions...but that again would not be true.

This is not based on burying ones head in the sand nor of ignoring sound evidence...

Well, yes, it is based on this. Because the scientific method is based on evidence

The flaw in the scientific method lies with the interpretation of the evidence from what I have seen and tried hard to understand.

Let me ask you a question Botz.

Please do anytime...I'll try and answer as best I can.

If I could make a prediction about the future evidence, one I couldn't possibly have known in advance, very very specific, one that would be extremely unlikely to be true by coincidence - a prediction based on the theory of evolution - and at some later time it came true, would you then believe me?

You mentioned gravity you see, and you said you'd be entering the twilight zone to deny it when you saw a pen falling to the ground, whether or not it was in the bible. So I thought, what can I do along these lines in terms of evolutionary theory? Well, the best evidence in any theory is prediction - we can actually see predictions coming true just as we can see a pen falling to the ground. Would this convince you? Or would you say "maybe Nikolai is the devil, maybe he has knowledge of the future, maybe he's got spiritual powers"? Would you enter the twilight zone to shelter your beliefs from disproof?

I'm not quite sure what you mean SA I am not a closet Twilight-Zoner and I will always consider any argument or theory in as far as I am capable...and I am not in the habit of telling someone they are of the Devil.

I am familiar with predictions from a biblical perspective...they are called prophecy and have proven 100% correct...so I would be interested in your scientific prediction.

I have never ever been afraid of facing hard questions or resorted to unreality in order to shelter myself from the onslaught of those who were strongly opposed to the G-d in whom I have trusted...and I am not easily offended so please go ahead.

[Bread_of_Life]

Botz

but because I am surprised at some of the claims you make about the exactitude and honesty of Science per se and was not aware that you were truely echoing the faith/credo/stance of people like Richard Dawkins or Professor Richard Lewontin.

Richard Dawkins is a particularly extreme example of course, of a scientists who includes, in his books, explanations of the problem of natural evil for example, and also specifically addresses the argument from design.

These sections of his books of course, are "non-scientific". Rather, they deal with philosophy and theology, not with science. In other words, his books stray out of science and into theology sometimes, and he doesn't make the de-lineation clear. On the other hand, they're excellent books, and very readable.

That is true...however I don't take much heart from that especially considering the mixed signals coming from the present Archbishop of Canterbury...but I take the point that a Christian may believe in G-d and evolution despite my own personal misgivings about such a compromise.

I'm glad to hear it. Also, I don't think the Archbishop of Cantebury has ever given anything but a mixed message on anything. He can talk for an hour and say nothing, it's a talent!

However, what is sure is that these people have essentially devoted their whole lives to faith and to the church, it would be difficult to believe that most of them didn't even really believe in it at all, as you now recognise.

I would have thought other implications were that for 40 years Scientists were blinded to the obvious nature of the fraud because their own pre-conceptions made them jump to un-scientific conclusions

Actually, the skull was not "obviously" a hoax. To confirm that it was, flourine absorbtion dating was required, a technique pioneered in the 1940s, 30 years after the Piltdown hoax first came out.

However, suspicions had been voiced before then, for example, in 1925 the dating of the Piltdown gravels were shown to be incorrect (although at the time, noone suspected an outright fraud).

To understand this fraud better, there is an excellent web story associated with it:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html

Also to imply that they did not have todays modern methods of testing is certainly true but it obscures the fact that the jaw bone of the Orangutang had its teeth ground down to resemble a humans and the file marks were therefore patently obvious amongst other things.

It wasn't patently obvious at all. The reason is of course, very few other homonid or australopithecine finds had been found at the time, so it was very difficult to compare it to anything else.

Sure, the jaw was more apelike, and the skull more human - but who was to say? They seemed to fit together, and body parts don't all have to evolve at the same rate do they? So it did take more modern techniques to finally expose the hoax, including modern finds.

I just used it as an example because from what I know it was believed to have been extinct for 70 million years..and the point being that Scientists were wrong in their original assumptions of its premature demise that's all.

Coelacanth is very unusual in this sense of course. The reasons scientists thought it was extinct is very simple:

Firstly, there used to be about 100 species of coelacanth recorded in the fossil record, but about 70 million years ago, the fossils just stop.

Secondly, 66 million years ago, coinciding with coelacanth's apparant demise, there was a great extinction (the K-T boundary) where lots of other animals went extinct.

Thirdly, no Coelacanth's had ever been found or fished. Of course, this is because the two remaining species who survived the K-T they lived in deeper water, where they are harder to find, and leave very few fossils.

In this sense, Coelacanth is an exception. The couple of species that did survive the K-T extinction both lived in deeper water, and thus were less likely to be found and leave fossils. Furthermore, the places they may have left fossils have not been well explored by paleontologists.

What it doesn't show is that in general, extinctions in the fossil record arn't accurately detailed. After all, as I said, there used to be many many species of Coelacanth, the likelyhood is most in fact did die out!

I am sure some Creationists have jumped to certain conclusions before and maybe there are several bad'uns amongst them...but it would be pretty self-defeating for them to present easily disprovable evidence and think that Christians are going to believe it lock stock and barrel just because they themselves are Christians...or Fundamentalist if you like....we are not all brain dead...and we do weigh up the evidence as well as we are able.

I would agree, but for a few reasons:

1. They don't always present all the evidence, in fact, they rarely do. They are expert at cutting and pasting out of context.

2. They don't always present the evidence accurately, but often twist it to mean things it doesn't.

3. They are working with a public at large that knows almost nothing about the evidence, and hasn't done its research - and also have an in-built attraction to their theory through belief in the bible.

You may think by 3 that I'm insulting you all. I'm not. But I've never ever met an "amateur" creationist on a bulletin board, or IRL, that can accurately describe the evidence for evolution. Indeed, I've never met any creationist that has. What that suggests is that creationists are not selling to experts, they're selling to non-experts.

You don't seem very fond of Creationists to say the least...and seem to tar them all with the same brush...have none of them ever had any redeeming things to say from a scientific point of view that are challenging and provoking?

I don't know each and every creationist ever to live, so I couldn't tell you. What I can say is that my experience of them and their methods has been extremely negative. I have repeatedly found them to lie, or deliberately twist evidence, or ignore it, or quote scientists wildly out of context.

WHat is most concerning to me Botz, is that just one instance of the above would lead to rejection from the scientific community. Yet, I have seen multiple instance of each of these from creationists, and yet they are not dealt with. They are not ejected from the community. This makes me very suspicious, as well as many other things that I have mentioned here and above.

Does part of the Scientific method mean leaving out G-d ?

The scientific method is about coming to conclusions about natural causes and natural history. Therefore God is outside of remit.

That doesn't mean that God is left out of it, Scientists can also be theists - and believe that God was constantly involved in shaping the natural world. But when they go to work, they don't talk about divine causes, but rather natural causes, not because divine causes don't exist, but because they are outwith the remit of science.

Now, what creationists want you to believe is that they are talking about divine causes. Actually, they're not, they're making testable claims about nature and natural history. They're not just saying "god created the earth", otherwise science would have nothing to say about this statement. Science can neither prove or disprove it.

Rather creationists are saying "the earth is so-and-so years old, the animals were created in so-and-so order, and the animals are unrelated, and man isn't related to apes". These arn't commenting on the divine at all. They are testable scientific hypotheses for which empirical evidence can be gathered, and therefore they are falsifiable. Science therefore has something to say about them.

I will try to be clearer with my terminology in future although I would contend that in practice there can be a 'merging' of theism and science...just as there can be a strong case for determining that religion and politics can mix...and that they are not mutually exclusive.

I disagree, I do not see how religion and science, or ethics and science, can ever mix. I believe that science is defined in such as way as would make this mixing impossible.

Now you make it sound as if Creationists never disagree with one another...and ultimately the implication is that Evolutionists are more human/normal.

I don't mean to. WHat I am saying is that they all have the same prejudice and the same bias toward the data. They admit it, they stick by it, they even deliberately put the bias before the data.

Compare this to the scientific community, a massive entity full of different biases, different prejudices, where people actively try to put the data, the evidence BEFORE the bias. Sure, they're not always able to - but at least if there are enough different biases when they come to a conclusion it's unlikely to be biased.

I believe a certain ideology prevalent amongst scientists in this and several instances leads them to the wrong conclusions

I think you'd find, in a sample of scientists, that the only common ideology is that of the scientific method.

My Uni, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, was essentially, as the name suggests, sci and tech only. I was in the physics department. I've never seen more Chrsitians per square yard. And muslims. No kidding, the place was just full of them.

There were actually 4 seperate Christian Unions. They even had competing events. There were 2 versions of the alpha course running there. Seriously, the place was full of religious people. Lots of sikhs and hindus too.

I don't believe automatically what any Scientist says...and as you pointed out previously their theories only last until they are disproved...so Science is perfect but Scientists are not because by nature they interpret.

Firstly, I have never asked you to believe something because a scientist said it.

Secondly, the problem isn't interpretation - all theories are interpretations, the problem is incomplete evidence. That is why theories are overturned, not because they are interpretive. There is a way of getting to the right interpretation of the evidence, it's called "testing predictions". Sure, all theories are interpretations of the evidence, but only one is right, so only one is likely to get its predictions right.

The flaw in the scientific method lies with the interpretation of the evidence from what I have seen and tried hard to understand.

Really, it doesn't. The reason science keeps changing is because new evidence is constantly found. Interpretation is pretty black and white when you make a prediction and it doesn't come true.

I'm not quite sure what you mean SA I am not a closet Twilight-Zoner and I will always consider any argument or theory in as far as I am capable...and I am not in the habit of telling someone they are of the Devil.

Good, then I take it you will take tested or testable, and very specific predictions as good evidence of a theory, whatever that theory, because people can't see into the future. Excellent. I think you and I need to have a chat then. I'll set up a new thread when I have time.

[yomotalking]

Scientific Atheist,

I don't know each and every creationist ever to live, so I couldn't tell you. What I can say is that my experience of them and their methods has been extremely negative. I have repeatedly found them to lie, or deliberately twist evidence, or ignore it, or quote scientists wildly out of context.

I've just read the following in "Christian Values in Education, so prehaps you can tell me if you think this is true:

" The Earth has a magnetic field, which causes a compass needle to point towards north.

It is known today that the strength of this magnetic field is decaying. In 1835, mesurements showed it to be 8.56 units. In 1965, it was 8.02 units. In 2000, it was 7.8 units.

From these measurements, past and future levels of the magnetic field strength have been derived on the basis of uniformity.

Calculations indicate that zero field strength will be reached at the year 10,000 A.D., and that the field strength would have tended towards infinity at 20,000 B.C.

Too weak a magnetic field, means little protection from harmful, radioactive, comsic rays. Too strong, and the earth would posssess such energy and heat, as to be unstable, and man could not live in these extemes.

Therefore, the period of 30,000 years from maximum down to minimum magnetic field strength would indicate that Earth is not millions of years old."

Is this Scientific fact, or Christian make-believe??

Yomo

[Bread_of_Life]

yomotalking

Is this Scientific fact, or Christian make-believe??

Like all good creationist inventions, it's a bit of both. There's real science in there, but what is hidden is more important:

The Earth has a magnetic field, which causes a compass needle to point towards north.

Yes, it does.

It is known today that the strength of this magnetic field is decaying

Yes, it is decaying - that is, it's getting smaller.

From these measurements, past and future levels of the magnetic field strength have been derived on the basis of uniformity.

Here's where the invention starts. The creationists assume uniformity. Do we have evidence of this uniform decay? We'll see in a second.

Calculations indicate that zero field strength will be reached at the year 10,000 A.D., and that the field strength would have tended towards infinity at 20,000 B.C.

You see, the problem is, the earth's magnetic field hasn't been decaying for long, and it's not going to continue to decay forever. In fact, it's reversing.

How do I know this? Because:

a) We've got measurements of the earth's magnetic field for the last 10,000 years

b) it's reversed before, hundreds if not thousands of times.

How can we tell though? How is this measured? How can we know what the magnetic field was 10,000 years ago, and how can we tell that it's reversed many times in the past?

The answer is simple. Rocks contain iron and other magnetic materials. When a rock is formed, the magnetic field of the earth causes the rocks to take on a weak magnetic field, because it contains magnetic material. The magnitude of this field is proportional to the magnitude of the earth's field at the time of the rock's formation.

The direction is the same too. So if a rock solidifies and the compass is pointing north, the rock's field will point in the same direction. If the field is the other way around, and is pointing south, then so will the earth's magnetic field.

By measuring the magnetic field of layers of rock, we've found literally hundreds of field reversals in the past. By measuring newer deposits, we have a good measure of the magnetic field over the last 10,000 years.

So yes, the earth has a magnetic field. Yes it's decaying. But actually, not uniformly, and not forever. It's actually reversing. It's reversed like this hundreds of times before. Actually, this proves an old earth, there hasn't been time for so many magnetic reversals in a young earth. Oops. say the creationists, as the trudge back to their homes to make up some more tall tales.

[yomotalking]

So yes, the earth has a magnetic field. Yes it's decaying. But actually, not uniformly, and not forever. It's actually reversing. It's reversed like this hundreds of times before. Actually, this proves an old earth, there hasn't been time for so many magnetic reversals in a young earth. Oops. say the creationists, as the trudge back to their homes to make up some more tall tales.

Well, thats very clever, but many Christian Scientists would disagree.

see www.icr.org/pub/imp/imp-242.htm.

yomo