Topic awaiting preservation: Evolution vs. Creationism (Page 5 of 13)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I said no amount of prayer will turn one aside - I did not say, that a gun will
malfunction or not - I am talking about a bullet that is underway, and on
target, and will kill on impact.

---

I know. I answered that by saying that prayer might not turn a bullet. I haven't heard of a case of it actually happening. I'm sure it has, but like you said, it can't be repeated in a laboratory. I guess I got a little off on a tangent, but my point was that it won't consistently sway bullets, at least not the way you might think. God can't be contained in a laboratory. You can't put Him in a box. There are other ways of making things happen instead of miracles. I love this part in the movie Revelation where a guy asks God to knock over a cup. He says that if God knocks it over right then and there, he will be a believer. The cup stays there and he tells the Christian woman next to him, "See, the cup didn't fall, no God." Then, as he walked out of the room he bumped the table by accident and the cup fell. God isn't restrained by our way of thought. Besides, He loves much more to talk through a gentle breeze than a raging earthquake.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Research and study of the matter

---

By whom? Scientists in a laboratory that want a miracle right? They want God to show them that He exists by turning a bullet. Where is the faith in that? Same thing happened to Jesus on the cross. They wanted a miracle to change thier stance. Jesus, I think it was, said that "even if I do a miracle you won't believe me." You know what. He did one and they didn't believe Him.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

You are just not mature enough to face things on your own,

---

No, not "mature", I think the word is strong. There are some things in this world I can handle. There are others I can't. Webshaman, I think there are things in this world you are not even strong enough to face on your own. I really hope you don't have to go through them, but you might. God helps me understand and work through those I can't so that I will be able to triumph with His help.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I have had a lot of experiences, many that you have not had.

---

That's true, but I am beginning to think that I have had some experiences that you have not had either.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

My experiences of death have shown me, that there is just darkness,
and an
unbelievable feeling of serenity, and peace, like a huge weight lifted
forever.

---

Kinda like a good night's sleep? I think that might be right. I don't know about this, but I'm not sure if people go to Heaven right when they die. They might, and I am going to have to ask some one where that thought came from, since I'm not seeing it in my reading of the Bible, but it should look like sleep. In the end is when Heaven is, or at least Heaven on Earth. It comes at the end of the Tribulaiton. That is what I have been reading at least.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I am a product of my experiences, and my reflections on and about them.

---

Ah, so experiences was the word I was looking for before. Not heard, read, seen; experienced.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Your "good" is another mans "evil". And vice versa. You may believe in a
polarization of Good and Evil, symbolized by your god and your devil. But there
is no single shred of evidence, that such exists.

---

You are right. Men are very good at making up their own morals, or twisting old ones to thier own devices. Where cannabalism is bad here, it is a sacred right in some other parts of the world. Same with lying, cheating, stealing, same-sex marriages...but that is a different thread.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

A great flood, that wiped out almost all of Mankind.

---

Yup, they deserved it too. But just so you don't think I think of myself as better than them, I deserve the same death they got.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

first he kicks you out

---

Actually, we ran out on Him. We told Him that we knew better than Him, so He let us go. Adam and Eve were tricked, but they did fall for it. They showed that they loved knowledge more than God. They showed that they thought they knew better than God. So God told them to leave.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

was more than willing and was prepared to kill them all.

---

Not Noah. He loved Noah because Noah loved Him. Noah pleaded to God that the people really did love Him, but God can see men's hearts, and He knew that they didn't.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

just because they didn't even know he existed

---

Actually in the end times there will be a judgement for those who weren't able to have the Gospel preached to them, but those who turned down the Gospel are immediately thrown into the lake of fire.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

If these are your notions of "good" and "evil", then I can do well without,
thank you.

---

Good=love
Bad=hate
Can it get any simpler?

More to come...

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

Webshaman, I think there are things in this world you are not even strong enough to face on your own. I really hope you don't have to go through them, but you might.

---

Rubbish. Whatever does not outright kill me, gives me the chance to learn from it. Whether or not that learning is positive, or negative, is not relavant. Perhaps you would like to name some of these things?

quote:

---

Yup, they deserved it too.

---

Oh, they deserved death and damnation for all eternity. Nice god. And just who are you to judge if they did or not? Your attempts to defend the "evil" actions of the being you claim is love is really way off the deep end. Next thing you know, you will be saying that other mass murderers are saints! God knew before hand that all this would happen, remember? So, he knew that Adam and Eve were going to be tempted, and that he would have to kill off all of Mankind (exception Noah and family...right). That God knew this in advance, makes it pre-meditative. Remember, he did it with anger and scorn (as described in the bible). That is NOT the reactions of a loving being. A loving being would be plagued by great sadness from such an action at the least. No, this is an example of a hideously jealous, callous, and revenge-filled being.

God killed. God committed mass murder. That you love the idea of such a being, I can see why you must do everything in your power to find justifications for this. This is not the act of a loving being Gideon, irregardless of what you may think. That would be the equivalent of killing the whole body, with the exception of one cell, to save it from cancer, and then cloning the cell until it was a being again. It would never be the same thing that it was - and all that it knew would be lost. In end effect, the being was killed and replaced by something else - not the original being. The original being is forever lost. God's solution was faulty. He should have sent missionaries into the world, instead, to turn the people. It is what he ended up doing, anyway...just that he resorted to murder to do it, instead of love.

Can't get them to believe, kill them off. Great, loving being. Clear the fields for those that do love you, knowing that eventually, they are also going to end up worshiping a golden calf, and kill your only son. Then kill them all again with fire.

Your god can't get enough of killing, it seems.

According to what you are saying about a miracle, chance also suffices as explanation for it as well. Since you cannot demonstrate that there is a difference, what criteria do you use to identify a miracle and seperate it from mere chance? If one can't seperate chance from a miracle, then they are one and the same - anything that is chance can be called a miracle, and vice versa. Since there is no evidence, no facts, nothing - it is irrational. It is equal to believing that prayers to the golden calf will achieve results - which they will, exactly on par with prayers to your god, and chance.

This is the mistake that you make. It is where your rational thought breaks down into the irrational.

I do not consider Bugs to be irrational. Quite the opposite. He is also a deeply religious man. I consider you to be very irrational. Conversations with you on this board have revealed, time and again, examples of such.

I'm going to follow the lead of DL, and gracefully bow out. I think that is the wisest choice here. I leave you to your faith. Go learn from your god. I will continue to learn from life.

quote:

---

but I'm not sure if people go to Heaven right when they die

---

Nope. We die and nothing else happens until judgement day. Then the "good souls" are brought up to heaven so they can spend the rest of eternity praising God. He's building his own squad of cheerleaders. I can hear them now. "God, God, He's our Man! If He can't do it, no one can!"

God: Varsity Letterman Extraordinaire.

=)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

And just who are you to judge if they did or not?

---

A nobody. I didn't judge. Note my disclaimer:

quote:

---

Gideon said:

But just so you don't think I think of myself as better than them,
I deserve the
same death they got.

---

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

hideously jealous

---

That part is true, but the other is not. They were murderers, fornicators, etc. They were really bad people and they got justice. They got payed for what they did:

quote:

---

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

---

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

It would never be the same thing that it was - and all that it knew would be
lost. In end effect, the being was killed and replaced by something else -
not
the original being. The original being is forever lost.

---

I think you just came to the conclusion that every born-again Christian has gone through.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

He should have sent missionaries into the world, instead, to turn the people.

---

Well, He did. Noah told them. Over and over, but they didn't listen. God knows mens' hearts, but Noah didn't understand that. After about 100 years of trying, he understood that too. The only reason God has missionaries now is that there are people who listen to him now.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Your god can't get enough of killing, it seems.

---

We can't get enough of sinning.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

what criteria do you use to identify a miracle and seperate it from mere chance?

---

Faith Webshaman, something not easily grasped by some people. It is the same kind of faith that allows me to ride a bus without worrying that the driver will hit a curb, or the bus will explode. My faith in God is different, like a "super-faith", but it is about the same.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I do not consider Bugs to be irrational.

---

Yet I suspect Bugs practices many of the things you deem irrational

quote:

---

briggl said:

Nope. We die and nothing else happens until judgement day.

---

I'm pretty sure that is what happens, but I am confused by all the talk about being in Heaven when we die.

Anyway Revelation explains that we won't be cheerleaders. We will reign on Earth as kings. We will have lines that will live forever, so we will be heads of kingdoms. Very interesting stuff. Actually, the cheer stuff only happens with the saints that go to Heaven during the Rapture, then we all come back down to Earth after the Tribulation.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I'm going to follow the lead of DL, and gracefully bow out. I think that is the
wisest choice here.

---

I'm sorry you feel that way. If you really don't want to talk about this stuff I understand. Not too many people do. (I think a Bigfish quote is that "talking about religion is impolite.")

I will answer the other posts from yesterday on my next post (if I can, I may run out of time again.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Okay, sorry about the delay, I ran out of time yesterday.
Here are the answers to the other posts, I am really sorry about not answering you.

quote:

---

WarMage said:

As for the idea of using god as a crutch or an excuse, I completely agree that
this should not be a way for people to approach life.

---

As an excuse, no, but as a crutch, why not? You need a crutch to walk upright when you are hurt, right? Why can't you ask God if you can lean on Him when you hurt?

quote:

---

WarMage said:

However, using the bible/god/jesus as a moral compass is not all bad.

---

Well, that depends on what side of the argument you are on. As Webshaman eloquently pointed out, good and evil can be different for each man. It would be extremely difficult to get everyone to agree with the morals in the Bible (I have a hard time, and I have been doing this for a couple of years now. )

quote:

---

WarMage said:

The intollerance that many people find while reading the bible
should be ignored

---

Some people might disagree with me on this, but the Bible (with a few exceptions) teaches that tolerance (not nececcarily acceptance of the belief, but love of the person) is a good thing to have. See Romans 14.

quote:

---

WarMage said:

far to many believers take the intollerances in the bible as an excuse for their
own bad behaviors.

---

I think this is very common. Men destroying a very beautifully created set of morals or a fair justice system, and twisting it to thier own whims. The southern plantation owners did that very thing in the 1800s. Also a more modern example is in the movie King Arthur with the evil father of the next pope. We are degrading morals and the justice system in the United States, and if something doesn't happen soon then it will become corrputed again.

quote:

---

briggl said:

Believe in God or he will let you starve to death!

---

In a sense, yes. Follow God and trust Him, and He will help you out. If you don't follow God and trust Him, then He won't help you out as much. (You see, even if children leave the house, the parents still have ways of providing help without the children even knowing about it.)

quote:

---

briggl said:

So what about the devout believers in some of these areas around the world who
are also starving to death?

---

I don't know what God does, or why He does it, I can only make an educated guess based on what He did in the past, or what He wrote in His word. That said, I am 99% sure that it is for one of the following reasons:
-"You reap what you sow" (in a figurative and literal sense )
-As a lesson about trusting God (that is starving, but not to death)
-punishment

See what Paul had to say to the Corinthians about suffering, and why it happens:

quote:

---

2 Corinthians 4:8-18
8 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; 9 Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; 10 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. 11 For we which live are alway [sic.] delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. 12 So then death worketh in us, but life in you. 13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; 14 Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you. 15 For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God. 16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. 17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; 18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

---

That might have been a longer answer than you wanted, but does it help?

quote:

---

briggl said:

You mean "I think that you have just experienced man's evil so much that it
masks the good MAN can do."

---

No, man is very bad at being good. There aren't any people on this earth who are inherently good, and very few who have become good.

quote:

---

briggl said:

So, you're going to be a king? I didn't know God said that if we believe in him,
we are all going to become kings.

---

quote:

---

Revelation 5:10
And hast made us [the saints] unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
Revelation 21:24-27
24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. 25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. 26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. 27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

---

That is what will happen after the end of this age.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

As I can guess rather easily where you are going with it, and what you *think*
you are going to 'expose' by it, I think I'll pass and save the headache of
having to explain why your conclusion is so flawed and empty of any actual
point.

---

Okay. I am glad that you don't easily fall for things. That is a good trait. I do wonder though, what direction do you *think* I was going with it? You might be totally wrong. I just don't want you to miss out on learning something.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

(Edited by Gideon on 01-09-2005 02:46)

Sorry, double post.

(Edited by Gideon on 01-09-2005 02:45)

Creationism vs. Evolution?

Um... a bit of both, but neither really...

What was that middle one again?

==I don't believe it! Somebody stole my sig!!==

I don't know it's name, but are you talking about the one where God started the big bang, or something like that?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

I have a question for all those who believe in a literal bible - please explain to me how rock forms in under 20,000 years, please.

WebShaman: I suppose they explain it by saying that either :

• all the scientists around the globe are wrong when they date some rocks older than ~6,000 years
• God created the rocks to look like they are older than the world

Yes, but I want them to explain to me, in scientific terms how this happens. I have already heard the "scientific terms" for how fossils are formed, from the literal believers - but they have never been able to explain how the actual rock formed, that the fossil bones were in!

WebShaman: you know, the ways of the lord are impenetrable.
( I hope that's the correct translation )

Actually, it doesn't take millions of years for rocks to form. Take a look at this . You only need a formula for fossils, diamonds, rocks, etc. Just the example of one is enough to show that it can happen in short time. That is what I found in just 3 min of search. I am sure there are other examples if you need them.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Gideon - do we actually have to explain, *again*, the vast difference between something being coated with rock from a watery source containing stone sediment, and something becoming fossilized?



We've been through this already...

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about rock formation. If you wanted to know about fossilization, just look at these:

Fast Fossils
Whale Explodes Fossil Theory
Sensational Dinosaur Blood Report

I hope that works. If not I can find more.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

this- http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/fossils.asp speaks about imprints, not fossils. and like most articles you post, it draws conclusions which are not supported by the evidence it presents.

this- http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/whale.asp well, I'm at a loss as to what it is even trying to say. we find one whale floating around dead, and the whole concept of fossil formation is wrong???????? Heloo....anyone in there?

this- http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/blood.asp I would need to find corroboration of these findings before addressing any issues it brings up.

all of these articles are *painfully* vague and primarily avoid any but the most superficial scientific approach to the subject.

Gideon,

quote:

---

Yes, but I want them to explain to me, in scientific terms how this happens.

---

I am still waiting.

Oh, and while you are at it, please explain to me in scientific terms how sap forms to Amber in record time.

And another thing - please explain in scientific terms how the Colorado (and Niagra) rivers managed to erode their way through meters of bedrock in "record" time. And we are talking about kilometers, here, in the case of Niagra.

Next question - what about Tectonic Plates, and Tectonic Movement? And if those models are wrong, then how do Earthquakes and Tsunamis come into being?

If Tectonic Plates exist and Tectonic Movement (which, btw - we do know exist and can be proven that they move) - how do the Young Earth Creationist explain that?

Oops! I forgot this link - Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism A fascinating read, really. And they were all young creationists before.

(Edited by WebShaman on 01-18-2005 09:49)

Interresting read indeed.
One thing I wonder, is it so bad/hard to become atheist after facing the truth of the facts for more than 10 years and being finger pointed ( to say the least ) whenever you raise a single problem ? Billions of people are atheists and it doesn't make them worse than the believers, or empty of all goals and happyness.

That is actually easier to answer as one may think - to someone who Believes, to find out that the basis of their belief (i.e. the Foundation) is flawed, casts EVERYTHING in doubt. This often leads to a crisis, a very serious one, as the person in question attempts to find meaning for their life and continued existence, and the means to continue. Of course, I can only speak for myself (having been one who went through such a crisis).

Whether it is bad to become an atheist? For one who believes in a God and a system as the Christians do, yes. Because you are being "tricked" by Satan, and are going to be sentenced to hell for eternity. For other faiths, it may mean that you will have to wait even longer to obtain enlightenment, or some other "penalty".

It also means that there is no "higher" power, (or a lack of evidence thereof), which for someone who believes there is, is hard to accept (if not impossible).

Maybe some of the others who are not Atheists would like to comment here, as well.

Sure I imagine it must be as if the world was falling apart, but in the case of the article you gave, that man has had many years to confront the facts with his system of belief. As for the conscequences of becoming an atheist, aren't they nullified if you realize that your system of belief was based on some misconceptions of the real world. Having always been an atheist I suppose I can't imagine what really is a "crisis of faith", the magnitude and impact it can have.

But, get back to your questions :

• please explain [in scientific terms] to me how rock forms in under 20,000 years, please.
• please explain to me in scientific terms how sap forms to Amber in record time.
• please explain in scientific terms how the Colorado (and Niagra) rivers managed to erode their way through meters of bedrock in "record" time. And we are talking about kilometers, here, in the case of Niagra.
• what about Tectonic Plates, and Tectonic Movement? And if those models are wrong, then how do Earthquakes and Tsunamis come into being?
• If Tectonic Plates exist and Tectonic Movement (which, btw - we do know exist and can be proven that they move) - how do the Young Earth Creationist explain that?

quote:

---

As for the conscequences of becoming an atheist, aren't they nullified if you realize that your system of belief was based on some misconceptions of the real world.

---

In a crisis of Faith, you don't just "change" all of a sudden. There is much examining and agonizing over right, wrong, truth, untruth...and the uncertain fear that maybe you will go to hell. It takes time, for stability and strength of feeeling in the new direction to take hold (and to cast off old beliefs, feelings, etc).

quote:

---

But, get back to your questions :

* please explain [in scientific terms] to me how rock forms in under 20,000 years, please.
* please explain to me in scientific terms how sap forms to Amber in record time.
* please explain in scientific terms how the Colorado (and Niagra) rivers managed to erode their way through meters of bedrock in "record" time. And we are talking about kilometers, here, in the case of Niagra.
* what about Tectonic Plates, and Tectonic Movement? And if those models are wrong, then how do Earthquakes and Tsunamis come into being?
* If Tectonic Plates exist and Tectonic Movement (which, btw - we do know exist and can be proven that they move) - how do the Young Earth Creationist explain that?

---

Any takers?

Oh, and I thought that maybe this would be a reasonable answer for Gideon

quote:

---

If you think that a 140-year-old rock is somehow bad news for "evolutionists," you are mistaken. I have seen rocks that are even younger than yours; just a few months ago I saw many rocks at Mount Saint Helens that were less than 20 years old. Minimum formation times are only a problem (to the young-Earth crowd) for a few types of rocks; since your example was not one of those types, it doesn't really help the young-Earth cause. The age that rocks "have" to be (by virtue of the time they would need in order to form) is not nearly so big a problem as the age that many rocks appear to be (by virtue of the distribution of isotopes within them). I recommend that you read the talk.origins Age of the Earth and Isochron Dating FAQs on this site. They provide a brief introduction as well as many pointers for further reading.

---

- from Talk.Origin

A bell in a rock crust? That is not what I asked about (and that is not the type of rock I asked about, either). I know that some types of rocks can be produced in seconds! Just look at "cooled" magma! It is rock. The same goes for the phenomena we see at Mt. St. Helen's. I am talking about fossiles (i.e. once LIVING beings) in stone. Give me examples of this happening, and explain to me in scientific terms how that can happen at a fast rate - and no, the fossilized trees of St. Helen's doesn't count - because they are in turn not surrounded by rock that is meters, if not tens of meters (or more) thick.

Another interesting thing - meteor impacts. I mean, a lot of them that we have found evidence of are real extinctiors (i.e. really big - and would cause major extinctions with their impacts). having so many of these happen within such a small amount of time - there would be no life left on the planet. And certainly there would be mention of such in the bible. Please explain scientifically how so many impacts of this magnitude could happen and not leave any lasting impression on the humans during the last 20,000 years.

(Edited by WebShaman on 01-18-2005 14:03)

WebShaman: Go easy, with your rush of questions you're going to shake/shock all the creationist hereby.

Wow Webshaman, I had no idea that you had so many questions! You are right, I don't know all the answers, and I don't plan to in my life time. I try to know some, and I will get to work on those that you have given me (I think I'll start with the list). It may take a while so bare with me.

As for the other thought of Atheism, I do have some thoughts on that, but you will have to wait on another date when I have more time. (this is not an evasion, so if I forget, please remind me.)

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Actually Gideon, don't answer the questions here. Answer them for yourself. If you need even more questions without answers, I would be glad to provide them!

The point to the excercise is that apparently you haven't asked yourself such questions (otherwise, you would already have an answer for them - or just the "I don't know"). Now, I know you are "fire and flame" for your belief in a literal bible and a young earth. But every YEC that has tried to prove it with scientific methods has failed miserably, and most have had to abandon their positions (though not necessarily their faith - that is normally something different). Of course, I don't expect you to apply any importance to this - I am just pointing out how intenuable your position is as a YEC.

I can literally bury you with questions that haven't been answered by the YECs yet. I told you that (and warned you) at the start of our "discussions" oh so long ago. At some point, you come to the conclusion that you can't answer them all.

And that, Gideon, is what I was trying to point out when I first addressed you long ago. It is a question of Faith, for YECs, with the science evidence against it.

quote:

---

At some point, you come to the conclusion that you can't answer them all.

---

Careful where you go with that.

I know you are not implying that science does have all the answers, but that is certainly what it sounds like.

There is an abundance of questions that cannot be satisfactorily answered by religion (no, I won't call it creation 'science', because it just....isn't) or science.

I am certain that you could also be buried by question that you would not be able to answer...

quote:

---

There is an abundance of questions that cannot be satisfactorily answered by religion (no, I won't call it creation 'science', because it just....isn't) or science.

---

I agree, whole-heartedly with that statement, DL. With this sentence

quote:

---

At some point, you come to the conclusion that you can't answer them all.

---

I meant the questions that I have in reserve (and that I have asked, that you have asked, that others have asked). I do NOT mean Science in general can also answer ALL of them (though I do mean answer them scientifically!) Some questions evade an answer, to date (and in the foresee-able future, unless something really radical happens), like "Is there a God?".

Of course Science can't answer everything! I have also pointed out in other discussions that Science is a young discipline. Give it a couple of hundreds of thousands of years to mature (as religion has had). It may still not be able to answer everything (see my remarks on a Super Nature, in Ini's thread The kiss of the two worlds :: an hypothesis )

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I can literally bury you with questions that haven't been answered by the
YECs yet. I told you that (and warned you) at the start of our "discussions" oh
so long ago. At some point, you come to the conclusion that you can't answer
them all.

---

You are right, I can't answer them all. I don't really need to. I trust God. I don't think you do though Webshaman. I understand that you have many questions. You have buried me in them, and I am interested in finding answers, pondering them, etc. But the fact is that the same goes for the other side too. You seem to forget that there are equally (if not more) questions and answers in Evolutionary Science that have no answers (yet), or require faith to discern.

You make this out to seem like Christains don't have all the answers. Well, here's a news flash - we don't. I know that I do have one answer, though, and that is Jesus Christ. I have also experienced that when I do have a question, it most of the time seems to evaporate in love and trust. I guess the only time I really need to go looking is when someone else asks me. I go look, and I do find an answer. They are out there Webshaman. Both sides. I would suggest going here if you really need any answers becuase they have done much research. I wouldn't dismiss them too easily as "religious nuts" either, because they have some very incredible arguments, and PHDs. Whenever you have asked me a question, that is where I have gone. They answer them very nicely.

It is also a great site for those Christians who are new, but have questions about their faith, because we have been called to stand firm in our faith and be ready to defend it. There are some nice answers there.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

with the science evidence against it[Creation].

---

Says who? There is plenty of science to go around on both sides. Why do you think Science disproves the Bible?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

I won't call it creation 'science', because it just....isn't

---

It is science, just like the Evolutionary science. The only difference is that God is the center of one but not the other.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Give it a couple of hundreds of thousands of years to mature (as religion has
had).

---

Actually, science has been around only a few years less than "religion." Remember, science was born when the first human asked the question Why?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

Why do you think Science disproves the Bible?

---

Well now. A good question. I do not think that Science disproves the bible, I know it disproves a young earth. There is a big difference here. One does not have to take the bible literally. A literal word-for-word translation clearly does not stand up under the scientific way of proving something. I have already posed enough evidence of this.

quote:

---

It is science, just like the Evolutionary science. The only difference is that God is the center of one but not the other.

---

No Gideon, it isn't. It is not anywhere near science. Clearly, you do not understand the difference, do you?

quote:

---

Actually, science has been around only a few years less than "religion." Remember, science was born when the first human asked the question Why?

---

This is unbelievably untrue! We are talking about the scientific method here! Science is based on this. You really do not understand this, do you?

quote:

---

I understand that you have many questions.

---

Uhhh...you really don't understand what I post, do you? I don't have questions for myself (though I do examine my positions, and re-examine them - that is different - for some positions, I have NO answer) - I have questions for you, that you can't answer.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

There is a big difference here.

---

Well, the Bible comments on a young earth, so...

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

No Gideon, it isn't. It is not anywhere near science. Clearly, you do not
understand the difference, do you?

---

I understand what you think the difference is. You think that Creation Science came about from looking at the Bible, then applying methods to try and prove the Bible, while Evolutionary Science came about by looking at evidence, then posting that evidence without any speculation at all in science text books, essays, reports, etc. Am I right?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

This is unbelievably untrue! We are talking about the scientific method here!

---

No, science was born when people began to ask why things happened, and then try to explain them. I guess that is kinda narrow-minded now that I think of it. That would be classified as: historical science I guess. It is not operational science, though. Operational science uses the scientific method. That is experimentation, documentation, publication. Things that cannot be disputed. Technology is a good example of this.

Historical science, on the other hand, is reconstructing experiments in the present, based on clues found embedded in rock (or else where) that originated in the past. Answer me this: do fossils exist in the present or the past?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

You think that Creation Science came about from looking at the Bible, then applying methods to try and prove the Bible, while Evolutionary Science came about by looking at evidence, then posting that evidence without any speculation at all in science text books, essays, reports, etc. Am I right?

---

No.

Creation Myth is based on Faith. Faith does not rely on evidence of any kind, and can even exist where there is evidence to the contrary.

Science is the objective testing of phenomena using logic, reasoning and scientific method. It is a process whereby knowledge is suggested, proved and corrected, allowing humans to learn more about natural or technological systems.

The scientific method is an ordered sequence of events whereby a scientific investigation may be undertaken. The results of scientific investigations can then be used to draw new conclusions and develop new scientific knowledge. Scientific experimentation is used to provide evidence to prove whether observations, hypotheses and predictions are correct.

Although the scientific method can be critically analysed philosophically, it can usually be broken down into a series of five main stages during the scientific process. These are:

* Observing a phenomena in the surrounding environment.
* Forming a hypothesis explaining the phenomena.
* Making predictions based on the hypothesis.
* Test the hypothesis by way of experimentation.
* Record results and modify the hypothesis as needed.

And normally the results are subject to peer review.

That is science.

quote:

---

Answer me this: do fossils exist in the present or the past?

---

You do not know? Fossils had an existence, sometime back in the past - and exist to this day.

Actually, the main difference is that normal scientists try to find consistent theories for observed phenomena. On the other hand, creationist proponents start with the theories and then try to come up with some type of consistency based on that.

The other point I want to make is that challenging the literal text of the Bible is not the same as challenging someone's faith. Faith needs no evidence. I could say that I believe that God created the world yesterday, including all the fossils and all the memories of things that happened and historical evidence for all sorts of things to keep historians employed. There is no evidence for or against this theory nor can there be since I've conveniently explained away everythign by saying "God created it that way." Now, instead of saying God created the univers yesterday, you're just moving the creation date back a few thousand years (or however many creationists are now claiming).

My main point of contention is with the literal translation of the Bible itself. The Bible was never meant to be taken literally. Not only is it filled with impled metaphors, similes, allusions, and parables; the prophets themselves frequently used metaphors and stories.

I find it disturbing that people quibbling over semantics seem to forget that they're reading an english translation of a greek translation of hebrew (aramaic). Even the writers of the New Testament books quote from several Greek translations of the Old Testament.

quote:

---

Actually, the main difference is that normal scientists try to find consistent theories for observed phenomena. On the other hand, creationist proponents start with the theories and then try to come up with some type of consistency based on that.

---

Which is why it is not creation science.

It would be nice to see more people concentrating on the Wisdom to be found in the Bible, instead of attempting to cram some faith-based myth down other's throats, that flys in the face of science.

Gideon, I am still waiting for you to explain how 150 large impact craters (involving at least 50 meter wide meteorites to form - which destroy an area the size of a State) could go totally unnoticed in the bible (not to mention that such impacts tend to kill off a huge amount of stuff) - and 3 of them were of gigantic proportion. These three are normally thought of as the "dinosaur killers", because their impacts must have had a global effect - much like the Levy-Shoemaker impacts on Jupitar.

And a young earth would not have survived all of these impacts in such a short time period (and then add a global flood to it, as well). Explain this, please.

(Edited by WebShaman on 01-21-2005 13:35)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

* Test the hypothesis by way of experimentation.

---

This is the one I am confused about. How can you experiment on things that have already happened?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

You do not know? Fossils had an existence, sometime back in the past - and
exist to this day.

---

I do know, but it seems like you don't. You answered my question just by repeating it back to me in an answer form. All I wanted was to know if fossils existed in the past, or if they exist in the future.

quote:

---

silence said:

Actually, the main difference is that normal scientists try to find consistent
theories for observed phenomena. On the other hand, creationist proponents start
with the theories and then try to come up with some type of consistency based on
that.

---

But isn't that what Webshaman just pointed out that Evolutionist Scientists do? They form hypothesis and then test them?

quote:

---

silence said:

The other point I want to make is that challenging the literal text of the Bible
is not the same as challenging someone's faith. Faith needs no evidence.

---

Blind-faith does not need evidence. But God doesn't want His followers to blindly follow him. He wants you to follow Him because you trust Him and what He promised on the Cross. My faith does need evidence becuase I do not blindly follow things, and I have gotten that evidence over and over again.

quote:

---

silence said:

My main point of contention is with the literal translation of the Bible itself.
The Bible was never meant to be taken literally. Not only is it filled with
impled metaphors, similes, allusions, and parables; the prophets themselves
frequently used metaphors and stories.

---

Well, of course it is not to be taken entirely literally to the point of gouging eyes out if they cause you to sin. That was a parable. The thing is that the Bible is truth. The parables are parables. The metaphors are metaphors. But, it is easy to tell if it is a parable, metaphor, etc. or not. You just have to use your language skills. I know where you are going with this in the effect of Creation being a parable or metaphor. It is not. Genesis is the beginning of the Bible, of the world. If that is a parable, why not the rest of Genesis with the Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. How about Moses and what he did, is that a parable too? Oh, and going a few thousand years ahead, the virginity is just a parable, right? Maybe the crucifiction too?

Now, I know I am blowing this out of proportion, but I am trying to make a point. If you start to say that historical events recorded in the Bible are parables, metaphors, etc. then you leave the rest of them up for discussion too. There is a difference between history and parables in the Bible. For instance, Jesus said that He spoke in parables to the people. Guess what? Jesus spoke in parables whenever He addressed the people. Does that mean that when He spoke to His disciples that those were parables too? No. Then He explained the parables. It is kinda hard to explain a parable with a parable.

quote:

---

silence said:

I find it disturbing that people quibbling over semantics seem to forget that
they're reading an english translation of a greek translation of hebrew
(aramaic). Even the writers of the New Testament books quote from several Greek
translations of the Old Testament.

---

That is a good point. The thing is that most English speaking people can only understand Engilsh, so they cannot understand Greek or Aramaic. That is why the Bible was translated in the first place.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

And a young earth would not have survived all of these impacts in such a
short time period (and then add a global flood to it, as well). Explain this,
please.

---

If you really want me to, then I can do some research for you.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

This is the one I am confused about. How can you experiment on things that have already happened?

---

Uhhh...maybe because they may have left evidence behind, that they happened?

quote:

---

I do know, but it seems like you don't. You answered my question just by repeating it back to me in an answer form. All I wanted was to know if fossils existed in the past, or if they exist in the future.

---

You'll forgive me if I am confused here. In the future? I would tend to think that yes, they will continue to exist in the future, unless they get destroyed. And no, I didn't just repeat it back to you. I explained it to you. An existance - meaning, they were in existence before, in the past, and then became a fossil, and remain so to this day (the present).

quote:

---

But isn't that what Webshaman just pointed out that Evolutionist Scientists do? They form hypothesis and then test them?

---

No, what I said was :

* Observing a phenomena in the surrounding environment.
* Forming a hypothesis explaining the phenomena.

quote:

---

If you really want me to, then I can do some research for you.

---

If you must, then do so.

Okay, let's take it one point at a time.

quote:

---

But isn't that what Webshaman just pointed out that Evolutionist Scientists do? They form hypothesis and then test them?

---

Yes, they form hypotheses that is consistent with the evidence. Creationists take one hypothesis, the one in the Bible, and try to work backwards from that. Therein lies the fatal flaw.

quote:

---

Now, I know I am blowing this out of proportion, but I am trying to make a point. If you start to say that historical events recorded in the Bible are parables, metaphors, etc. then you leave the rest of them up for discussion too. There is a difference between history and parables in the Bible. For instance, Jesus said that He spoke in parables to the people. Guess what? Jesus spoke in parables whenever He addressed the people. Does that mean that when He spoke to His disciples that those were parables too? No. Then He explained the parables. It is kinda hard to explain a parable with a parable.

---

Now you're taking me too literally.

I was using parables as an example. I'm not saying that the historical accounts are meant to be parables, but they shouldn't be taken as strictly accurate either. First of all, all historical accounts are subjective because someone has to write them, unless you think God did a direct mindlink and had the prophets/disciples act as spiritual laserprinters. This would contradict the idea of free will.

So the point is that you can find truth in the historical accounts as long as you realize that they are not literal truth. Ask five people to describe an event that they all witnessed and you will get five different, sometimes contradictory, accounts. This is exactly what happens with the four NT gospels. If you look at a synopsis they differ in things such as the timeline, what exactly was said, etc. This doesn't invalidate them as sources, but it also means you need to be careful how you interpret them. The Bible is truth, but even that statement, for me, is a metaphor.

Going back to the OT and the creation story, I think that there is no way to prove whether the creation myth is literal truth or not. Therefore, that leads me to two points: 1.) it fails to be a valid hypothesis on these grounds abd 2.) arguing about whether it is a metaphor or truth is pointless.

and, the, wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round, 'round and 'round....

It *IS* this simple:

if you start with your conclusion already reached, IT'S NOT SCIENCE. IT'S FRAUD.

Period. End of story. That's it.

If you choose to beleive the things these ignorant jackasses spew out for you - great. Whatever keeps you happy.

But to argue these silly points and talk yourself in circles accomplishes one thing, and one thing only, Gideon: it portrays you as extremely ignorant.

Acccept what the bible says on faith - fantastic. No problem.

Try to actually argue this bullshit as "science" - c'mon man- open your fucking eyes....

DL-44 went straight to the point.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Uhhh...maybe because they may have left evidence behind,
that they happened?

---

Well, sure they left evidence behind, but that is just evidence, some bones, cup shards, etc. There are many holes in that evidence (figuratively and literally ). My question is how can you make experiments on things that have already happened?

The example I gave Sangreal this morning was this: If you were to shoot a bullet 6 feet above the ground I stood on 10 years ago, you would not hit me, the bullet would wizz over my head. If you were to shoot a bullet 6 feet over the ground I stand on now, then you would blow my brains apart.

I know that is a little gory, but I think it illustrates my point. Just becuause you do the experiments now, doesn't mean that is how things were back then. Just looking at how our society changes on a day to day basis, things don't stay the same. You can't even say for certanty that the laws of science worked back then (even Evolutionists agree with that point, so don't argue it).

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

In the future?

---

Sorry, my fault. Word slippage there. I meant present. It goes along with the point I am trying to make that the fossils exist in the present. That means you have to look at them and make the best, educated guess you can make about how they got there.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

No, what I said was :
* Observing a phenomena in the surrounding
environment.
* Forming a hypothesis explaining the phenomena.

---

And then:

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

* Making predictions based on the hypothesis.
* Test the hypothesis by way of
experimentation.
* Record results and modify the hypothesis as needed.

---

That is what I was commenting on.

quote:

---

silence said:

Yes, they form hypotheses that is consistent with the evidence.
Creationists take one hypothesis, the one in the Bible, and try to work
backwards from that. Therein lies the fatal flaw.

---

Could you please explain to me how that is different, because for some reason I am just not getting it. It still sounds the same to me

I am out of time again as usual, but I will get back to the posts that you have made starting with the last part of Silence's post.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

My question is how can you make experiments on things that have already happened?

---

By trying to reproduce them of course. And gather as much datas as possible on those events.

quote:

---

It goes along with the point I am trying to make that the fossils exist in the present. That means you have to look at them and make the best, educated guess you can make about how they got there.

---

I wouldn't qualify of "educated guess" the gathering of prints and other evidences ( may be other fossils, teeths, pieces of metal, sculpted stones, pollens, ... ) nearby the said fossil, plus the dating of all these materials, plus the confrontation of all these datas with the similar datas and knolewdge gathered throughout the world. Putting God and faith behind that sort of thing is a "guess".

quote:

---

Could you please explain to me how that is different, because for some reason I am just not getting it. It still sounds the same to me

---

I think DL-44 said it pretty well.

The sole goal of a scientist is to improve the knowledge by proving or disproving some hypothesis he has elaborated from the observation of concrete and verifiable datas/facts. That's not what YEC's "scientist" do.