Posted on 09/03/2007 5:31:19 PM PDT by Creationist
In the opening of any book today that involves origins, dinosaurs, ECT. you can always expect to see the term billions of years as they know for a fact. Like some one was there to record this event.
Well here is another fine example of the evolutionist religious belief.
From the book Natural Wonders of the World, by P.J. Banyard, Page 6
Once there was nothing. There was no space and there was no time. (Now you will have to understand this if there is nothing the laws of conservation of energy state you can not create or destroy matter, in short nothing can not make something. This is a religious belief on the evolutionist part that this can happen.)(Here is the exciting part)Then,between 13 and 18 billion years ago, all the primeval matter which makes up the universe (here it comes)burst out from another dimension and exploded.
So no one was there to record when the event happend thats why they can not narrow down the time line, but hey the other dimension thing is cool.
They try to say my religious belief hinders my ability to discern science. Well you have a bigger faith based religion then I do. I have a God who told man how he did it (not all of the finer details) but that he did it. And you on the other hand have a belief system based upon interpretation of visible evidence today, with the assumed backward winding of the process to nothing exploding out of another dimension wow. All praise the mighty nothing.
The book is full of evolutionary statements that start off with the unsure words like; might have, could have, we think, seems to, and then finish as though they have the facts to prove their statements.
No one can prove 100% that the Bible is how the universe and all living things got here or that The Big Nothing From Another Dimension created the universe and all living beings.
But you can rest assured that science proves the Bible with out the use of smoke and mirrors more that the ever changing theory of evolution does.
exactly.....
the altar of neo darwinism is vast....
but remember, ITS SCIENCE, DAMMIT, SCIENCE, AND DONT YOU FORGET IT....
“SO THERE”, THEY SAID.
Philosophy and religion have not digested any of it to date.
Energy that can not be seen or measured. Yea that is science.
regardless of the ‘evidence’ support dark matter, that still leaves the conundrum of exactly where that matter came from ....
‘science and atheism’ have not digested any of it to date.
It's a creation myth minus God.
dark matter is has been championed over and over, and ‘evidence’ is needed to help the bb make sense, so of course, ‘evidence’ will be found to support it...
on a February 2004 press release from the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) was headlined as ‘Corrupted echos from the big bang?’
had this note in it:
‘But if correct, they suggest that the rumours that we are living in a “New Era of Precision Cosmology” may prove to be premature! “Our results may ultimately **undermine**
the belief that the Universe is dominated by an elusive *cold dark matter particle and the even more enigmatic dark energy”*, said Professor Shanks’
OK, smart guy, tell me all about the physical dimensions of Heaven ~
I think you have proved Creationist’s point, because Heaven is part of revealed faith, and nobody has the dimensions. All these guys were saying is, they have a faith, and you have a faith. The only difference is, they (we-I include myself) have preachers, priests, bishops and popes to guide us in faith and morals. Your religion has high priests who pawn themselves off as scientists.
You find it impossible to believe our God created all things from nothing. Now, you believe that some accident created everything from nothing. Seems like the real difference is which god you wish to believe in, my Creator God, or your accident god.
You realize, of course, your high priests are operating completely out of their chosen field, when they make such statements, don’t you? -Glenn
Much as when creationist criticize science based entirely on religious belief?
Hey, Coyoyeman. Haven’t posted with you for a while.
I have been to this site from our last discussion, and again, now. I think you need to back off from saying, “...points are rebutted...” That site more that rebuts, rather just denies. I certainly haven’t read it all, because there’s too much, but every one I look at, they (he? I guess it’s by Mark Isaac), he usually just puts forth his ideas, and sets up his own straw men arguments to knock down, as though they were serious arguments, and all that any creationist has. Seems rather weak, since most of these arguments are about philosophy, rather than science. The problems seem to arise when dime-store philosophers claim to be scientists.
Now, you have to admit that in the above article, (assuming it’s quoted accurately)that is not science, but philosophy or metaphysics. I’d like to think it’s math, but I know it’s not that either. -Glenn
I agree. The conclusion of that blog is:
But you can rest assured that science proves the Bible with out the use of smoke and mirrors more that the ever changing theory of evolution does.
I entirely agree with you that this is not science, but philosophy or metaphysics. And I must add, it is not even accurate.
But it also seems that the blog is using the term "evolution" with the creationist definition of "everything in science that we disagree with!"
Perhaps. I’d suppose there needs be some logic involved. I can’t accept a religious belief that defies logic, and I don’t believe that God made us with logical minds, just to provide illogical revelations. So, I suppose your term only applies if it’s “entirely” based on religious belief. The difference for me is that the teachers of my religion are trained in philosophy, and the ones with degrees in science are not.
My idea is that real science cannot be opposed to true faith, because truth is always true. There are only mistakes and mistaken ideas. If the religion is true, the science must agree with it, as well as the reverse.-Glenn
I suppose you are correct, but I can understand both views. The creationists are treated like a$$holes, and called stupid by “scientists,” very often, and at some point, it looks like all scientists are haters of God. Much the same, some creationists act like whatever comes from some quarters are lies. Sometimes, like in the above blog, “scientists” make such outrageous claims it deserves scorn. I suppose, cooler heads should prevail, but not usually. -Glenn
Such a statement has no meaning in science, which seeks the best explanation consistent with the evidence.
Science can rule out explanations that are not consistent with available evidence, but it will always be revising its theories and conjectures to fit new evidence.
This does not men science cannot be confident about its assertions; it just means that theories are continually being refined. As a general rule obsolete laws and theories remain true for the subset conditions known at the time they were formulated.
I too can understand both views.
Where a legitimate conflict arises is where some scientists extrapolate beyond what science can speak to. But very few scientists go about bashing religion.
But that is not what I have seen on this website this past year or two. Many, if not most, fundamentalist/creationists here deride science because it does not agree with, nor confirm, their particular religious beliefs. They rightly deride science for overstepping its bounds, but then they consistently commit the same logical error -- but in far greater numbers and with the absolute conviction of true zealots. And they can't see the comparison.
This brings up those cases where "creationists are treated like a$$holes, and called stupid by 'scientists...'”
Those cases are pretty much limited to where creationists make claims that extend into the scientific realm. The young age of the earth and a global flood about 4350 years ago are two prime examples. The twisted science that we see in these threads to try to force science to accommodate these two creationist ideas leads to the harsh responses from scientists.
Scientists are often very anal about the accuracy of their chosen fields. Many have studied for 30, 40, or 50 years, and peer-review is generally cut-throat. Junk science, or errors of any kind are absolutely hated--a single major error will end a scientist's career.
Most scientists do not take kindly to creationists whose only science education is a visit to AnswersInGenesis and a stay at a Holiday Inn Express telling them how to practice their chosen fields.
I have often suggested that scientists stick to their fields and creationists stick to theirs, but that doesn't seem viable on these threads.
Very well said.
Then,between 13 and 18 billion years ago, all the primeval matter which makes up the universe (here it comes)burst out from another dimension and exploded.
So this mysterious stuff named singularity, came from somewhere, but no one knows where. No one knows how long it sat around before it expanded nor why it expanded. If all the matter of the entire universe were contained in singularity as claimed, it should have been the most massive black hole ever, that would have allowed nothing to escape. But it did and no one knows why it let go if it was being held together.
So it expanded in a trillion trillionth of a second to fill all of known space which means it traveled at a speed far greater than the speed of light, which everyone knows is impossible. Except that minor complication is taken care of by declaring that space can expand at a speed exceeding the speed of light.
Then it established its own laws which it promptly violated by coalescing into highly organized and predictable patterns.
And creationists get laughed at because they believe God did it?
Now, considering that this cannot be observed, tested in the lab or falsified, these speculations about the origin of the universe are called *science* by those in the scientific community. Scientists to indeed demonstrate great faith in their creation account especially considering they have nothing but speculation to back it up.
“Well here is another fine example of the evolutionist religious belief ... But you can rest assured that science proves the Bible with out the use of smoke and mirrors more that the ever changing theory of evolution does.”
This just serves to illustrate your naive bigotry and ignorance, since evolution and all science is based on empiricism, the constant testing and evaluating of data. As more discoveries are made, theories are refined and sometimes even abandoned. That is why the concept of evolution changes over time. With evolution, it is geology, especially radiometric dating and the underlying laws of physics, that support evolution, that is, what we observe in the geologic record. This is not religion.
What is truly irritating about you creationist types, is how you force the eternal and everlasting God into a tiny box. For you, God creates the universe in seven days, then spends the rest of eternity doing nothing! How utterly selfish and primitive!
My God, on the other hand, did not stop after seven days. With His eternal glory and imagination, he is still creating and one of the ways He manifests his power is through what the enlightened perceive as evolution.
Consider this. God created everything in the universe, including the laws of physics. It is the mathematics of physics that support radiometric dating and the other scientific disciplines that support evolution.
To deny evolution is to deny the science and physics that support it - and to deny the laws of physics is to deny the existence of God.
I’m not sure what you mean when you say science. Each man (normal man) is made to desire the truth. Nobody wants lies or errors. What you say is how science is supposed to work, but it’s not always so. History is replete with examples of available evidence which defies current theory (at the time) which is ignored or changed, to support whatever current theory is popular, for a whole host of reasons.
My point is that if religion and science are at odds over a point, more investigation is required in both fields. Science is supposed to be based upon verifiable facts which can be repeated and confirmed. Religion, or faith, if you will, is based upon revelation in many cases, but is confirmed by philosophy and theology. Some of the thought can be confirmed with confidence via logic. Now, logic is not alien to science. Some things in philosophy flow from first assumptions, and are as true as any scientific fact, assuming man can reason. If man can’t reason, science is lost, also.
This was begun by a quote from a “scientist,” who said that everything came from another dimension and just appeared. The point I was making is that what he said has nothing to do with science, and he was trying to use his degree in science to give weight to an idea that has nothing to do with the field of which he has his degree.
As far as revising theories to fit new evidence, that as it should be. The problems arise when the theories are revised to fit new theories which have no scientific evidence, but rather philosophical leanings, and in this case, the popular idea that God does not exist. The idea of God is a philosophical certainty, according to courses I took on college, aside from various religions. How that is taken from there matters to most of us, but for this discussion, matters little. The whole argument here is that somehow, the universe exists without the Creating God, but with the accident god.
What I’m getting at is that there is a bias in the “scientific community,” now, that will only accept evidence that excludes the Creator God. Gravity is a scientific fact. We may not understand it, but we can predict it, we can mathematically describe it, and we can repeat all the experiments we want to confirm it. That is true. The problems arise when some “scientist” says the law of gravity was NOT made by the Creating God.
The scientist, you see, is well equipped and an expert at testing the details of gravity, but when he declares where the law came from, he’s completely out of his field of expertise. -Glenn
I think you're the one putting God into a box here. Try reading the Bible, because if that's your idea of God doing nothing, then you're simply an idiot, and there's no other way to put it.
read later
“I think you’re the one putting God into a box here.”
What someone like you “thinks” isn’t important to me.
“Try reading the Bible, because if that’s your idea of God doing nothing ...”
What makes YOU think I don’t? Your self-righteous arrogance is typical of creationists.
Please at least pretend to be intelligent and try get your story right. I didn’t write of God doing nothing. What I said was that our eternal God is still showing his imagination and glory by continuing to create. We see this here on earth via evolution, which is supported by the laws of physics that God created ... but apparently YOU, in your self-absorbed, holier-than-thou, self righteousness, refuse to see this even though it is right in front of your face.
“then you’re simply an idiot, and there’s no other way to put it.”
Sorry to burst your bubble again, but there are plenty of ways to put “it,” coward.
“If evolution is based upon empiricism, where is your licken or chizard?”
Hey, if you want to play stupid, go ahead. Dig your hole and let the rest of the world pass you and the others of your sort by. See what I care.
Thanks for disparaging me without as much as a courtesy ping!
As for science, what makes you think your opinion has any validity? You and your fellow creationists berate those few scientists who intrude into the realm of religion, but you don't hesitate to intrude into the world of science with your religious beliefs.
Your religious belief is of a different order than scientific evidence. If you want to continue to trash science, then be prepared to come up with scientific evidence, not the junk science and creation "science" found on creationist websites.
If all you have is religious belief, you are doing no different than the few scientists who creationists disparage for their claims regarding metaphysics and religion.
You simply can't have it both ways.
If you’re going to disprove evolution, I hope you can do better for a source than a 25 year old children’s book.
You really are an idiot, aren't you. I even quoted it for you. Apparently you don't even understand the correlations of your own propositions, but then again, why would you, given the obvious...
I may be a lot of things, sparky, but coward certainly isn't one of them, especially on a debating forum. I used to eat guys like you for breakfast, and believe me, I wouldn't hesitate to put my membership on the line to bitch slap a punk like you in public.
So go ahead...piss me off.
Actually that statement was true as well
In FR the Treaty of Westphalia is fully in force so take your "your religion" BS back where it came from and stuff it up your ying-yang, OK!
They might as well have started that with “In the beginning...”
Your little universe filled with little else than predistination and concise doctrines surrounding the elect should be easily described.
Do so.
Falling down is a fact.
Gravity is an explanation and a theory. And gravity is not well understood; in fact it is the least understood of the physical forces.
Science says nothing at all about the existence of God, but it can study the physical history of the universe, the earth, and life on earth.
St. Augustine understood that when science and religion differ on matters of natural history, science is going to win. He was commenting on the shape of the earth, but his comments are relevant to the structure of the solar system, whether evidence supports a global flood, and whether living things are related by descent.
It does they just do not want it to sound like the Bible they are trying to discredit.
You think highly of yourself there Coyoteman.
Years of study does not come easily. Its hard work. I am proud of my education.
I do not get my information from AiG.
I read hard copy, if you do not know what that is, it is a books or magazines.
I am aware of what "hard copy" is. But I would suggest you read some of the technical journals as well. That is where the science really is. Most books and magazines are syntheses by non-experts, and, especially magazines and newspapers, are of little use in understanding what is really happening in science. Try burrowing through the several floors of libraries where the evolutionary sciences are found. (It may take longer than a stay at a Holiday Inn Express.)
I would like you to know as I have stated before creationist believe in science. That is the real stuff with the ability to test and study. Not the stuff of evolution which is not testable. Also radiometric dating is not an accurate science. It is a field based upon assumption. Those who do the testing assume that a rock found in a layer should be this old because of the fossils found in that layer. The fossils are this old because of the rock layer they were found in. The funny thing is these layers which are still held as fact were decided hundreds of years before radiometric dating. So you see the science you presuppose as correct is only validating what they want is not a true test. Do you have a 4 billion year old rock with a date stamp as proof if not they assume correctness of the test, any thing else is denial.
They assume leaching never takes place in any of your presupposed correct tests.
They assume the daughter element is the product of decay and could not be anything else, mixing leaching, environmental force, decay rate change as time goes on.
Your point here seems to be that "radiometric dating is not an accurate science" because it relies on assumptions. That is not logic, that is apologetics. Assumptions are often extremely well supported (e.g., the sun will rise tomorrow, in the east). It is a typical creationist tactic to point to all assumptions as if they were just wild guesses, with no support at all. That tactic is fueled by religious belief; creationists don't want radiometric dating to be accurate, and many will say, and believe, anything to avoid having to accept that the opposite has been shown to be the case.
Many other religious people have no problem with radiometric dating. Here is a good link: Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
Your comments greatly expected.
I also have placer mined and hard rock mined and am run an excavator, I see more dirt every day and it does not have the long and slow exhibits you believe. I see large scale catastrophe
I haven't run an excavator, but I have watched that type of equipment for probably 1,000+ hours, and I am pretty good on a backhoe. I have been on excavations in quite a few western states, and have seen a lot of dirt myself.
Large scale catastrophe is fun. I spent some time in the Channeled Scablands of Washington, and have flown over that area examining the formations from the air. But those formations are pretty well understood, and they are evidence against a global flood at the time the Bible experts specify (about 4350 years ago). You see, the Channeled Scablands are way too old, being formed by glacial floods at the end of the last ice age. A global flood about 4350 years ago would have wiped out all evidence of that earlier, smaller, flood. Yet, that evidence is still there.
In summary, you claim to love science, but you sure are willing to believe junk science and creation "science" when real science comes up with answers which don't support your religious belief.
As I thought about it more you are really to educated for your own good. You claim that most things written if not done by a person of a college degree is useless.
Would have you know most of the thing that are in your life were thought up designed discovered experimented upon without a coveted piece of parchment.
Sorry, your post has demonstrated your lack of knowledge about the Channeled Scablands in particular and archaeology in general.
The scablands are not dated by index fossils. They are dated by direct radiocarbon dating of a lot of different things, including geological and sedimentary formations, archaeological sites like Marmes Rockshelter (45FR50) for example, and by various sediments and the materials that are trapped in them. Those can include a variety of rodents and other critters, as well as carbonized plant materials and pollen.
And you have no clue how those of us who use radiocarbon dating work. You have only the creationist websites to rely on. And they are lying to you! They are doing creation "science" rather than real science--and it is entirely agenda driven.
I have studied the fields of archaeology and radiocarbon dating for several decades, and have personally submitted nearly 600 radiocarbon samples.
When you have studied the field as I have then you can feel free to lecture me on how I do my work.
Your religious belief has blinded you to the world around you.
If you have ever read a Bible, that is really read it, then read it again and compare that man to the character in it and the Course of the Jews. IF that is true then............
Sorry, I stick to science.
Do you have any rebuttal to the information I posted on radiocarbon dating above, or do you want to change the subject?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.