|
|
| Posted: 07 Mar 2008 16:15 |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4132
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
I recently watched a Christian science program within a day of a secular science program on dinosaurs.
The Christian program pointed out that Evolutionists believe that dinosaurs as being millions of years old should be completely fossilized (within a 100k years no less) but their not always.
The secular program shows some evolutionists find some dino bones with some soft tissue to their amazement. I mean how could this be? Dino should have been completely fossilized after 100 thousand years. Hmm. You know the idea that maybe, I mean just maybe, by the slightest possible chance that could mean that the bones weren't millions of years old never even crossed their minds.
Makes you want to scream sometimes, you know.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 07 Mar 2008 17:14 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Evolutionists have constructed a nice little intellectual bubble for themselves in which they can reject any opposing evidence by saying it's 'creationist'.
For example, ICR has had soem really interesting research come out that seems to indicate the decay rate of radioactive isotopes is not as consistent as once thought. But is anyone looking into it? Of course not! Look, if creationists are doing bad science, then by all means, call them on it. And the way to call them on it is to replicate their experiments and see if you get different results. That's one of the hallmarks of real science is repeatable results.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 08 Mar 2008 19:05 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4132
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
Evolutionists have constructed a nice little intellectual bubble for themselves in which they can reject any opposing evidence by saying it's 'creationist'. You hit the nail on the head. They don't let the facts lead them. They let their bias lead the facts.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 23 Jun 2008 21:07 |
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
The secular program shows some evolutionists find some dino bones with some soft tissue to their amazement. I mean how could this be?
Just as a goof, I think they might use some science to find that out.
Quote:
That's one of the hallmarks of real science is repeatable results. Absolutey. Now show a 'Chistian experiment' that does just that.
Quote:
They don't let the facts lead them. They let their bias lead the facts.
You've confused science with your book club. Get it right.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 24 Jun 2008 16:25 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4132
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
So you don't see that finding soft tissue in something that is supposed to be millions of years old is very unlikely?
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 24 Jun 2008 16:31 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
It's just about impossible, but if they have found it, they have evidence and a mystery to solve. This one piece of evidence does not just wipe out everything else done with this science or technique but instead informs them on improving in these areas in case of same anomalies. Simpler to say would be-they hit an unseen fork in the road and have to fix the map.
(all this on top of what you read being a true rendition of fact to begin with)
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 24 Jun 2008 16:41 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4132
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Just one more piece of evidence that creates doubts about evolution that's all.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 24 Jun 2008 16:45 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
That's what science is all about. New things are found and then figured out.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 24 Jun 2008 17:00 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4132
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
That's all and well and good as long as the scientist looks at the evidence from an impartial position.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 24 Jun 2008 17:03 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
scientist looks at the evidence from an impartial position.
Anything but impartial makes it not science by definition(and you still need a chat room here).
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 24 Jun 2008 17:07 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4132
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
So you agree that if a scientist looks at the evidence with impartiality towards evolution he might jump to the wrong conclusions.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 24 Jun 2008 17:20 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Scientists have to leave their personal feelings at the door when they work or they can't be scientists. If there's any lean toward evolution it's because it's the best and most thorough explanation we have in this area. Darwin was a God-fearing man who was not at all thrilled with his findings but as a scientist he did the work and produced the results anyway-that's real science.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 24 Jun 2008 17:27 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4132
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
So you see that's where we differ right there. You have faith that scientists that believe in evolution are impartial when they judge the evidence. I don't happen to believe they are myself. I never put my faith in anything that relies on the good conscience of man to survive. People are always going to look at evidence from their own personal prejudices.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 24 Jun 2008 17:52 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Faith is belief in something which completely lacks evidence. That would mean science doesn't take faith and in fact opposes faith.
If creationism/ID are based on faith they have no evidence, and if they actually find any evidence it could no longer be a matter of faith as it would then become actual science.
The place we differ Tim is in our understanding of the topics at hand.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 24 Jun 2008 18:10 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4132
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
That's sounds like you are saying you can't have faith in something that you do have evidence for.
The first step in science I thought was speculation and theorizing. If I speculate that something of intelligence must have had a hand in the universe then I've taken the first step, have I not?
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 24 Jun 2008 18:17 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
This is going to be that watchmaker thing again?
Natural evidence never supports a supernatural resource but go right ahead and try.
No, the watch itself is not evidence of the maker and a book saying the watchmaker is real is not evidence either. While you're at it, also prove which watchmaker it is.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 24 Jun 2008 18:22 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4132
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
I haven't even gotten that far yet. I'm just trying to get you to admit that it's a reasonable argument to say someone of intelligence was behind the universe.
Seems to me that supernatural is just a way to explain away things we don't comprehend. If we understood God perhaps we couldn't say He was supernatural.
Years ago people may have said our technology was supernatural.
Not that I think a human being could ever understand God mind you, but I'm going to far.
I want to stick with the question, Isn't it just as reasonable to assume intelligence was behind the creation of the universe as random chance?
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 24 Jun 2008 18:27 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
I'm just trying to get you to admit that it's a reasonable argument to say someone of intelligence was behind the universe.
It's not a reasonable argument.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 24 Jun 2008 18:36 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4132
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
How so? How is it more reasonable to believe inanimate objects formed the universe or that the universe was formed by intelligence? The universe works by so many laws that scientists can pen down and rely on. How could all that be an accident?
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 25 Jun 2008 00:11 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
It's not rational in the same way it's not rational to believe an individual is dragging the sun actoss the sky with a chariot.
It's much more reasonable to believe nature acts on it's own behalf.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 25 Jun 2008 14:34 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4132
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Who said anything about a chariot? If you looked at nature without any preconceived notions you could easily see logic behind everything.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 26 Jun 2008 01:17 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
If you're asking for a 'scientist' who's going to ignore everything that has already been figured out-that's not logical or rational or the slightest bit realistic and that's no scientist.
The chariot reference was from the Romans believing the sun was moved across the sky every day by a god driving it with a chariot when they made it up to add to their belief that this planet and Rome especially was the center of everything in the universe.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 26 Jun 2008 17:12 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4132
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
If you're asking for a 'scientist' who's going to ignore everything that has already been figured out-that's not logical or rational or the slightest bit realistic and that's no scientist. Well somebody had to question the theory about the sun was moved across the sky every day by a god driving it with a chariot .
I'm just looking at it from a fresh perspective pak. I always believe in starting at the beginning. Whenever I go to learn something new or have to fix something that's the only place to start. Everything you believe is taken on faith in reports from scientists, but not necessarily the science itself. It's just an interpretation of data from a biased view.
Anybody can look outside their window and see order in nature. That much can not be disputed. The question is can order result from chaos, creation from destruction, or an entire universe by random chance multiplied to an astronomical degree? These are all legitimate questions that should not be so easily dismissed by the general scientific community.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 27 Jun 2008 01:21 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
To make your fresh perspective a bit easier please realise that the origin of the planet is a subject of geology while evolution falls under biology. Seperating them and tackling each one should make them a little easier to get a good grasp on.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 27 Jun 2008 16:22 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4132
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Pak doesn't the story go something like this? The gases and matter wherever they came from (couldn't be God right) suddenly blew up for no good reason. Now instead of your usual explosion that just destroys things, suddenly a bunch of planets with gravity appeared and "wallah" the earth was even revolving around the sun.
Now the next big miracle happens only we can't call it a miracle because that wouldn't be scientific. A cell just happens to appear in the mud of the newly formed earth. Now this cell grows into a bigger cell and bigger until it's a fish or something. Then it goes swimming. Finally it's a monkey and then a man.
Truly a great miracle that this cell find a good home to grow up in where the air is just right and the planet is just the right distance from the sun. Wait there's that word again. Can't say miracle. And where did that single celled organism get it's start? Doesn't seem like the natural product of a big bang.
I just think it would be awfully hard to be a evolutionists. How can anybody say they believe this stuff with a straight face? I'd rather just say I don't know how anything got here than to go with evolution.
Not trying to make you mad by sounding sarcastic. It just seems so funny to me.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 27 Jun 2008 16:50 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
Pak doesn't the story go something like this?
Not that I'm aware. What's your source?
You're still combining geology and biology.
I find it funny when evangelicals point out that something can't come from nothing yet insist that God breaks the rule they point out.
Not mad at all.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 27 Jun 2008 21:58 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4132
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Yes, but I acknowledge that belief in God takes faith. Why can't you acknowledge the same about evolution?
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 27 Jun 2008 23:35 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Evolution has evidence and does not require faith to be true and continues to be true whether people believe or not. Belief in God requires faith for that God to be 'true' and ceases to be 'true' when believers are taken out of the equation. Look at Zeus and Odin-case closed.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 29 Jun 2008 19:23 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Boy, where do you even start with something like this?
It's obvious Pak that you really dislike Christians, that you think we are fools, and that you think we are like Hitler. You obviously think we're dangerous and resent our mere presence. I would be interested to know why.
But the good news is you won't have to put up with us forever. The bad news is it gets even worse after we leave.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 29 Jun 2008 21:31 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
It's obvious Pak that you really dislike Christians, that you think we are fools, and that you think we are like Hitler. You obviously think we're dangerous and resent our mere presence. I would be interested to know why.
I don't dislike Christians. As individuals you're mostly wonderful, with that handful of exceptions to be expected of any group.
I have never equated anyone to Hitler and would love to know where that comes from.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
|
