..."Creationism", for those who think magic is involved...
Evolutionists believe in magic also. By their magic, a frog, or even a rock can turn into a handsome prince.
Here is how their magic works:
When children are small, we often tell them about Santa Claus, fairies, hobbits, trolls, witches, ghosts, goblins and a multitude of other mythical creatures. Some of these have magical powers that can help them accomplish impossible tasks. Magic can spin straw into gold and a kiss can turn a frog into a prince. However, children grow up, and learn that all of these tales are not really true, but imaginative fiction. There is one tale however, that continues to be told repeatedly and with ever increasing imagination and detail all the way through the highest degree a university can bestow. It is a tale that public educators try to make even adults believe that it really happened "once upon a time", not in a galaxy far, far away, but right here on our own planet.
In many of these stories we have magical tools, actions or words, such as wands, kisses, rings, incantations, swords and almost anything else that can help the hero or villain accomplish otherwise impossible tasks. In this modern tale, there are only two magical things. One of these is chance. The other one, by far the most important and powerful magic, is time. Let's exmine, how these magical twins can turn, not only a frog, but even a rock, into a handsome prince. Children's stories often begin with "Once upon a time...." This tale is similar. You can find the intoning magic words: "Billions of years ago...." in big thick books with lots of fanciful, beautifully done illustrations. It is amazing how often the word "assume" is found in these authoritative appearing tomes. "Assume" is a more educated way of saying "believe", but when you assume something, you don't know it, but are guessing.
Somewhere near the beginning of such books you can read: Billions of years ago, ceaseless torrents of rain washed minerals from the rocky (minerals come from rocks) land and other compounds formed by the aid of innumerable lightening bolts into the pre-biotic soup (Campbell's?) of the warm seas. There these compounds, bumping into each other, by chance over time, made larger molecules called amino acids. These are the basic building blocks of all life, sort of like the bricks of a house.
After more time, (magic) these amino acids and other components organized themselves into single celled organisms, such as simple (actually very complex) bacteria. Some of them called algae, in time evolved to use sunlight to get energy. Green algae are part of the plant kingdom. In the course of millions of years, algae turned into roses, sunflowers and 300 foot tall redwood trees as well as all other plants we have today.
Some of these bacteria and other single celled organisms floating around in the lukewarm oceans, again by chance, came together as beneficial co-ops of multi celled groups. By unknown means or the magic of chance, over time, some of these became animals such as worms, snails and millions of years later, (a lot more time) some of them became fish.
Some of these dwellers of the sea, after several million years, got bored with the ocean and were able to also live on land. When the tide went out, some of them were left stuck on the beach. Somehow, maybe by trial and error (chance) some did not dry out, but figured out (smart, because they had brains already) how to breathe air for a while. Creatures that can live both in the water and on land are called amphibians. This is where the frogs come in.
After more time, some of these left the water and evolved to live entirely on land. They found they could also make a good living there, eating plants and each other. After a lot more time some even figured out how to fly. The Wright Brothers copied them and made the first airplane. They had first been insects or reptiles, some of which could fly, but then after more time, evolved into birds, which are much better fliers, partly
...they risk being proved wrong by scientific evidence...
Be careful not to confuse hard facts with the interpretation of these. There are NO hard facts that prove age one way or another. Both are based on certain assumptions (beliefs). Only scientific and biblical interpretations are in conflict. The facts are not.
...I believe that light travels (roughly) 186000 miles per second...
Can you prove it ALWAYS did travel at that speed for all time? No? Well then, maybe it travelled much faster through a smaller, denser Universe than we measure today? Maybe sort of the way sound goes much faster through a denser medium, such as water than through air? Could that be possible? Is there any evidence of this?
...A mathematical modelling half in which proofs...
are only as good as the underlying assumptions that are made in the initial conditions and the algorithms of the models themselves. If those assumptions (beliefs) are wrong, the results will be, no matter how many super-computer are cranking out the answers. Assuming anything in nature to be constant over long periods of time is a very tenuous, iffy assumption.
....By all human measurements, the rocks will appear to be hundreds of thousands of years old...
Shortly after you were born, someone tattooed a ruler onto your little body. It is the only ruler anyone has. Therefore you are still only as tall as you were then, as measured by that ruler.
Scientist measure time by the atomic clock. They assume (believe) that this is an independent standard of time measurement. The problem is that they don't know that this standard of time changed right along with the growing universe. The nature of space itself demands, as evidence shows, that the ruler of time, not time itself, must change as the universe expands, just as the ruler tattooed on a baby would.
..i suppose you think coal can be made in 4000 years as well?...
Why do you think it can NOT be made in that time or less? After all we can make charCOAL in hours today. We can make oil out of vegetable and animal organic matter in hours or days also. What evidence do you have that it MUST take millions of years to do these things?
...Plate tectonics is a theory... we test it often....
Yes, indeed, scientists observe California move a few inches and then extrapolate that movement and come up with utter crap stating that in x number of millions of years California will be next to Alaska. They assume (believe) this rate will be or has been constant for all that time. They do this backwards in time also. It can be observed that the continents sort of fit together like a huge jigsaw puzzle. What cannot be derived from this however is the time scale over which this continental drifting took place. This assumed, not measured or observed. Assuming that rate of present processes can be applied over vast time scales may be correct, but it is nevertheless an unprovable assumption. Most processes observed in nature today are neither linear nor constant.
It is quite conceivable, that when the earth was younger and hotter, the underlying layers where more fluid. This would mean that the continents moved much more easily and faster than we observe them to be doing today.
...but the evolution that scientists talk about is not a fact of evolution, but a theory...
Exactly right! Why then do most text books present it as fact? Why is then so objectionable to present ID as just another theory as well? After all, both are only theories trying to explain the actual facts we observe and measure.
...Ultimately, science and religion must converge to whatever the ultimate "truth" is...
Scientific FACT and interpretation of these facts are two entirely different things. What is actually written in the Bible and how it is interpreted are also often quite different.
Nobody has ever demonstrated a scientific fact to be in conflict to any actual written statement in the Bible. The interpretations of both often do conflict greatly however. Therefore, scientific and biblical TRUTH are NEVER in conflict, only the opinions of men about the meaning of both. Scientists do and of necessity have to make certain assumptions (beliefs). If these assumptions are wrong, then the conclusions will also be wrong. Using computers only obfuscates and/or amplifies the errors.
...But in the absence of evidence for such a thing...
I will include a portion of a reply I made earlier on this subject.
There is evidence that the electromagnetic properties of the medium of space itself have indeed changed dramatically over time. This would demand that certain numbers, ASSUMED to be "constants" have changed as well. One of these is Planck's constant which is measured to be smaller today than when it was first measured. Light-speed is related inversely to that. Light moved much faster through the medium of space, when the Universe was very young, small, dense and hot. Just as sound travels faster in rock or water than in air, so too light traveled faster through a denser Universe.
Since Planck's "constant" appears in equations describing the behavior of atoms, radioactive clocks must also be affected. So there IS evidence that call into question the belief that these "clocks" are truly constant over time.
...This is because there has yet to be any evidence to the contrary....
Well there is evidence that the electromagnetic properties of the medium of space itself have indeed changed over time. This would demand that certain numbers, assumed to be "constants" have changed as well. One of these is Planck's constant which is measured to be smaller today than when it was first measured. Light-speed is related inversely to that. That means light moved much faster through the medium of space, when the Universe was very young, small, dense and hot. Just as sound travels faster in rock or water than in air, so too light traveled faster through a denser Universe.
There is evidence from past light-speed measurements using a gravity time-base, which have shown a decrease since such measurements were first done in the early 1600s. When an atomic time-base clock is used, this is not seen, since the product hc appears to be truly constant, with h and c moving in opposite directions. If a ruler elongates at the same rate as a distance to be measured by it, the distance will always be measured to be the same, even though it really is changing. Gravity equations have neither h nor c in them. Therefore, any clock based on gravity will not be affected by the changes in h or c and measure them directly, without any correction factors needed.
Since Planck's "constant" appears in equations describing the behavior of atoms, radioactive clocks must also be affected. So there IS evidence that call into question the belief that these "clocks" are truly constant over time.
It is interesting that it possible to determine the approximate, highly non-linear function of the slow-down of the speed of light over time. If that correction is applied, the time scales given by the Bible and those given by the atomic clock measurements of radioactivity are not nearly so far apart, so they cannot be attributed to simple errors in measurements and biblical interpretation. The billions and millions shrink down into the range of only thousands.
...I've met many creationists who, for example, thought that fossils were...
Have you ever met an evolutionist who has actually MADE a fossil, rather than speculate about how they were made? If it cannot be duplicated in the lab or observed in nature TODAY, is is NOT science, but belief (assumptions). Adding lots of time does NOT solve the problem.
The word "assume" is the scientific code word for believe (faith). Can any evolutionist cite a "scientific" paper and its references, of major importance, of say more than five or six pages, that does NOT contain "assume", "believe" or similar expressions?
Science, like every human endeavor, has two components. Facts and belief. All of our lives are governed much more by what we believe than what we actually KNOW for sure. Scientific textbooks ought to carefully separate the facts of science from the beliefs of scientists. Facts should be stated as such, as should beliefs and interpretations of facts be labeled.
...Any time you have evidence that the Earth is older...
To ascertain age, that is to measure time, you have to have a clock. You also have to assume (believe guess) that this clock has ALWAYS ticked at the rate we observe it ticking today. That assumption may or may NOT be correct. It still is and will forever remain an assumption and NOT a measured observed FACT of science.
It just happens that the majority of assumers (believers) labeling themselves scientists BELIEVE that it has ALWAYS ticked at the same rate we observe today. That may be correct, but it still only belief.
If the time yardstick is made of metal or wood, constancy is a reasonable assumption. Since we don't really understand time, how do we know the time yardstick isn't like a rubber band that once was highly stretched and has relaxed a lot by now? IF that is the case, and it could be true, then all time guesses into the past based on the present could be WAY wrong.
...They only "neutral" text you would accept is one that omits substantial information...
No a truly "neutral" text would clearly separate observed, experimental facts from assumptions and interpretations.
from the link: (... and Halton Arp, while investigating the mystery of the nature of quasars, tried to develop alternative redshift mechanisms, and very few of their fellow scientists acknowledged let alone accepted their work....)
A neutral textbook would first include that there ARE alternate interpretations in the first place and then summarize several of them. A neutral textbook could even state that certain assumptions (beliefs) are not held be the majority of today's scientists. Of course, just because a certain view is held by a majority, doesn't mean that view is correct. The history of science has plenty of examples, where the majority opinion was shown later to be wrong.
again from the link: (...These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away...)
The 169,000 light year distance is NOT a measured value. We have NO technology to measure such distances. That stated distance, presented as if it were a measured fact, is based on the above mentioned red-shift being interpreted as distance. It is further based on the ASSUMPTION that the speed of light has always been what it is today. We can only measure the speed of light what it happens to be now. Whether it has always been of this value can only be assumed (guessed). Because there is NO way of measuring what it was in the past we have to make assumptions. Most of the time, these assumptions are stated as if they were measured, observed facts. That sort of thing has no place in science, but is OK for religion.
So then, the reference in para. 34 of the reference is based on TWO assumptions, NOT sure measured facts. These assumptions should be clearly stated in any text book. All the present dogmatic evolution textbooks state these assumptions as facts, when they clearly are not. ALL assumptions (beliefs, educated guesses) may or may not be correct, but they will ALWAYS be assumptions until someone actually measures or observes otherwise.
...To be fair the banks arent exactly posting record profits right now...
So, exactly whose fault is that? The tax payers? Why do the tax payers have to bail out *any* business and their greedy or incompetent executives for foolish or downright crooked business decisions? Many of these greedy bastards gave loans to people they knew or should have known would likely not be able to re-pay. Now, instead these rich BMW driving execs, who should be left holding their empty bag, managed to get the taxpayers to fill it up for them again. Of course the equally foolish defaulted borrowers still forfeit their homes. The latter could maybe be excused, because all they saw was the beautiful house they could move into. These fat execs, with their fancy MBAs, who should have known better, just like those crooks from Enron, should all go to prison for playing fast and loose with the money others have entrusted to them.
...Evolution != atheism. There are plenty of religious people who have no problem reconciling evolution...
How would anyone who claims to believe the Bible, in other words a true Christian, reconcile the opening statement of the Bible with evolution?
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Either God really did create the earth and everything in it or it came into existence in some other way. How can anyone who truly believes this very first foundational sentence of the Bible, have any difficulty in believing everything else that follows it?
If there truly is a God capable of creating everything that exists out of absolutely nothing, including all life, then everything else we read in the Bible that we commonly attach the term "supernatural" to, should be believable as well.
...how is atheism an irrational/non-rational belief in the supernatural..
So it now should be a matter of law whether a belief is rational or irrational? Atheism is a belief and as such it doesn't make any difference whether such a belief is termed rational or irrational. A belief defined in terms of what you don't believe is still a belief after all.
... you can't pass a law forcing people to teach creationism....
Why should evolution-ism, creation-ism or any other kind "ism" taught as science? Why not just teach the facts of science and let the student choose from the various interpretations?
For example, it is a fact that astronomers measure what has been called a "red-shift" in the starlight they see in their telescopes. That is really the only fact we have. It is measured cut and dried. Everything else concerning this red shift is pure interpretation and speculation. There are several interpretations which could equally apply to the data we have.
An unbiased textbook writer should first state this fact and then briefly outline the various interpretations and on what assumptions they are based.
A measured fact is that certain elements are what we have labeled in science as radioactive. What the rate of this activity is, how fast it proceeds today and what particles are produced can be accurately measured in the laboratory. A science textbook should concentrate on communicating the actual information we really do know. However, when radioactivity is promoted as a means of measuring the age of rocks and other objects, there are some underlying interpretive assumptions made. The word assumption is a scientific codeword for "educated guess". It is assumed that for dating purposes for example, the rate at which this radioactive decay proceeds for each element, commonly termed "half-life" has always been what we measure it to be today. That may be a valid guess, but it is not something that we really do know. Therefore, such a guess or assumption should not be presented as a known fact.
It is a well-established fact, that there is hardly any place on the surface of this earth, where we do not find fossils. All fossils show imprints of living creatures. It is also a well-established fact that these fossils are only found in sedimentary rocks, that is rocks formed by water action. A good, dogmatism neutral textbook would first present these and other observed facts about fossils. After that, it could give the various interpretations of when and how these fossils might have come into existence and what else they might tell us.
In short than a good neutral textbook with no dogmatic axe to grind would present the scientific facts we do observe and measure. Only after the facts are presented should ALL the interpretations and assumptions, clearly labeled as such we presented. Of course, realistically that will never happen.
has always been two decades in the future and will likely continue to be so for the next 500 years. However, there is a working fusion reactor 93 million miles from here. We could spend our efforts in using its energy directly instead. After all, that's what we are using now. It is the solar energy converted by plants and animals of long ago, that we call fossil fuels.
If the "terrorists" didn't have the oil money from the US and the rest of the industrialized world, the misfits that made 911 happen would not have had enough money to buy the plane tickets to the US. So yes, getting free from the oil's slavery would be a good "war" goal.
....Yeah I'm fairly certain Obama will be the next president...
Really? May I look into your crystal ball? I'm fairly certain that both the Republicrats and the Democans have the same goal. That goal is to screw over the common people. They only disagree in how to best do this without starting a revolution.
The $700 billion proposed financial bailout illustrates this. Both parties agree to help prop up the banks. Have you EVER met a poor banker? That is an oxymoron. BOTH parties want to guarantee that these bankers can continue to afford their BMWs and other luxuries. Will anyone who cannot make their mortgage payments will still forfeit their house to the lenders? Most likely yes.
So in the end, does it really make a difference who is elected? Those in power will always do everything they can to stay in power. The big moneybags will ensure that no meaningful reform will ever be enacted by the politicians they have bought and paid for.
...You can say it looks designed all you want, but that doesn't make it so...
If it looks like it is designed and acts as if it is ordered and controlled by immutable laws and complex information, it must be designed. You know if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....
(...Ok then, show me where in the Bible it says what's going to happen tomorrow? No?...)
How about Global Warming? I mean REAL nasty global warming!
Isa 30:26 And the moonlight shall be like the light of the sun. And the sun's light shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day of binding up, Jehovah binding the break of His people, and healing the wound of His blow.
Rev 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his bowl onto the sun. And it was given to him to burn men with fire. Rev 16:9 And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, the One having authority over these plagues and they did not repent to give Him glory.
There are very specific prophecies, not at all vague, that the nation of Israeli would be re-born as a sovereign nation after there was none since the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD and scattered the inhabitants all over the empire. Jesus predicted this destruction 38 years before it happened. In 1948, this is EXACTLY what happened and there is now a state of Israel. Also, as predicted, Jerusalem would once more be under sovereign Israeli control. That also happened, but only later, in 1967. The Jews never had sovereignty since before Jesus time. Furthermore, it was predicted that Jerusalem would be stumbling stone and rock of offense of all nations. What other city do you know of, where a zoning change threatens world peace? These are NOT self-fulfilling prophecies.
(..Why would the Mayans build huge temples for their gods if they weren't real? Or the Egyptians build enormous pyramids?..)
These are all relics of the past, but the Bible is being translated and distributed actively today, more than *any* other writing.
(..caring about who we are and being proud of what we as humans have accomplished..)
Accomplished the building of destructive power such as the world has never seen before? Jesus predicts that this destruction ability of mankind would lead to extinction of all life, if God did not personally intervene at the last moment. Accomplished the destruction of marriage and the home? The trampling of women underfoot by Muslims and some of the organized church is something to be proud of? Can we be proud as a race that the whole planet is being polluted and poisoned by our selfish greed? We did not make this world. It is NOT ours. One of these days the Landlord is going to come back to His property and He will NOT be happy.
Is it not instructive to you that advanced beings from other parts of the universe have been careful NOT to make contact with us humans? Is that why all our SETI efforts have been in vain?
Even in our very imaginative and fun to watch science fiction, we export our warlike and greedy nature to galaxies far far away. Death and destruction is still very much a part of what we imagine the far future to be. Is it not instructive to you that the ONE advanced being, Jesus Christ, sent from God was hated and murdered by man? Do you really think that eternal advanced intelligences would share technology with us that is so superior to what we even can imagine, we call it supernatural? How did Jesus control the weather or conquer death?
Right now, we humans are in such a sad shape that death is actually a blessing. If death would not remove evil despots and governments, would our planet not already be more of a hell than it already is?
How about telling me what we have to be so proud of?
Here is a very much contrasting vision of the far distant future you may read about in the last part of the Bible.
(Rev 21:3) And I heard a great voice out of Heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they will be His peopl
.. it was simply a QRS Player System making the piano play.....
Well so far at least, we human mice are still very much inside the universe, the piano. Even if the piano were a "player piano", someone still composed the music and cut the roll. Someone also built the piano.
Even if you do not accept the Bible as truth, or as God's message to mankind, you certainly should be able to consider that it is a very unusual book. Actually it is a collection of 66 books penned by 40 different writers over a time span of at least 1500 years. Yet it has a very unified central authorship and message concerning the dealings of God with mankind. Much of it depicts human history written down before it ever took place. Some of this history, written in advance, is taking place right before our very eyes in our time. We can read the content of tomorrow's newspaper headlines in some of the passages of the Bible.
For thousands of years, all human writing had to be laboriously copied by hand. When the art of printing was finally invented in 1439 by Johannes Gutenberg, guess which human writing was first printed? Guess which human writing is distributed more widely than any other and translated into more languages and dialects, by far, than any other? Guess which book its enemies have endeavored to destroy more than any other? There are many religious writings, but none of them come even remotely close to the content and distribution of this remarkable book.
In the King James Version of the Old Testament, the phrase "saith the LORD" occurs 802 times, according to my computer search program. Did God really say those things or are these 802 lies? In Genesis alone, the phrase "God said" occurs 28 times.
Why would a book so full of lies engender such huge human effort, generation after generation, over centuries of time? On the other hand, if God REALLY did communicate HIS truth in these writings, it would behoove us dinky little, arrogant human creatures to pay attention to what the Creator of the Universe is telling us.
...My goal wasn't to proove that there is a god just that there exists logacal reasons to do....
There is no way to PROVE anything. All we can do is to look at whatever evidence we have and then decide whether to BELIEVE that evidence or not.
There was a family of mice who lived all their lives in a piano, just as we live in our fragments of the universe. And to them in the piano-world came the music of the instrument filling all the dark places with sound and harmony. At first the mice were very much impressed by it. They drew comfort and wonder from the thought that there was Someone who made the music -- though invisible to them-- above, yet close to them. And they loved to think of the Great Player whom they could not see.
Then one day a daring mouse climbed up part of the piano and returned very thoughtful. He had discovered how the music was made. Wires were the secret; tightly stretched wires of graduated lengths which trembled and vibrated. They must revise all their old beliefs: none but the most conservative could any longer believe in the Unseen Player.
Later, another explorer carried the explanation further. Hammers were the secret; dozens of hammers dancing and leaping on the wires. This was a more complicated theory, but it all went to show that they lived in a purely mechanical and mathematical world.
The Unseen Player came to be thought of as a myth. But the Pianist continued to play the piano.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Go out of the light polluted city and look into the starry night sky and hear the Creator of the Universe play the Music of His Majesty, as He has since the beginning of time.
Really? I don't think there is even ONE human being alive who REALLY believes that. Anyone who did not, wouldn't be alive very long.
You mean you don't look both ways before crossing the street to determine the truth of a car coming toward you? Getting run over by an illusion can be hazardous to your health.
Slashdot Mirror
..."Creationism", for those who think magic is involved...
Evolutionists believe in magic also. By their magic, a frog, or even a rock can turn into a handsome prince.
Here is how their magic works:
When children are small, we often tell them about Santa Claus, fairies, hobbits, trolls, witches, ghosts, goblins and a multitude of other mythical creatures. Some of these have magical powers that can help them accomplish impossible tasks. Magic can spin straw into gold and a kiss can turn a frog into a prince. However, children grow up, and learn that all of these tales are not really true, but imaginative fiction. There is one tale however, that continues to be told repeatedly and with ever increasing imagination and detail all the way through the highest degree a university can bestow. It is a tale that public educators try to make even adults believe that it really happened "once upon a time", not in a galaxy far, far away, but right here on our own planet.
In many of these stories we have magical tools, actions or words, such as wands, kisses, rings, incantations, swords and almost anything else that can help the hero or villain accomplish otherwise impossible tasks. In this modern tale, there are only two magical things. One of these is chance. The other one, by far the most important and powerful magic, is time.
Let's exmine, how these magical twins can turn, not only a frog, but even a rock, into a handsome prince. Children's stories often begin with "Once upon a time...." This tale is similar. You can find the intoning magic words: "Billions of years ago...." in big thick books with lots of fanciful, beautifully done illustrations. It is amazing how often the word "assume" is found in these authoritative appearing tomes. "Assume" is a more educated way of saying "believe", but when you assume something, you don't know it, but are guessing.
Somewhere near the beginning of such books you can read: Billions of years ago, ceaseless torrents of rain washed minerals from the rocky (minerals come from rocks) land and other compounds formed by the aid of innumerable lightening bolts into the pre-biotic soup (Campbell's?) of the warm seas. There these compounds, bumping into each other, by chance over time, made larger molecules called amino acids. These are the basic building blocks of all life, sort of like the bricks of a house.
After more time, (magic) these amino acids and other components organized themselves into single celled organisms, such as simple (actually very complex) bacteria. Some of them called algae, in time evolved to use sunlight to get energy. Green algae are part of the plant kingdom. In the course of millions of years, algae turned into roses, sunflowers and 300 foot tall redwood trees as well as all other plants we have today.
Some of these bacteria and other single celled organisms floating around in the lukewarm oceans, again by chance, came together as beneficial co-ops of multi celled groups. By unknown means or the magic of chance, over time, some of these became animals such as worms, snails and millions of years later, (a lot more time) some of them became fish.
Some of these dwellers of the sea, after several million years, got bored with the ocean and were able to also live on land. When the tide went out, some of them were left stuck on the beach. Somehow, maybe by trial and error (chance) some did not dry out, but figured out (smart, because they had brains already) how to breathe air for a while. Creatures that can live both in the water and on land are called amphibians. This is where the frogs come in.
After more time, some of these left the water and evolved to live entirely on land. They found they could also make a good living there, eating plants and each other. After a lot more time some even figured out how to fly. The Wright Brothers copied them and made the first airplane. They had first been insects or reptiles, some of which could fly, but then after more time, evolved into birds, which are much better fliers, partly
...they risk being proved wrong by scientific evidence...
Be careful not to confuse hard facts with the interpretation of these. There are NO hard facts that prove age one way or another. Both are based on certain assumptions (beliefs). Only scientific and biblical interpretations are in conflict. The facts are not.
...I believe that light travels (roughly) 186000 miles per second...
Can you prove it ALWAYS did travel at that speed for all time? No? Well then, maybe it travelled much faster through a smaller, denser Universe than we measure today? Maybe sort of the way sound goes much faster through a denser medium, such as water than through air? Could that be possible? Is there any evidence of this?
...A mathematical modelling half in which proofs...
are only as good as the underlying assumptions that are made in the initial conditions and the algorithms of the models themselves. If those assumptions (beliefs) are wrong, the results will be, no matter how many super-computer are cranking out the answers. Assuming anything in nature to be constant over long periods of time is a very tenuous, iffy assumption.
....By all human measurements, the rocks will appear to be hundreds of thousands of years old...
Shortly after you were born, someone tattooed a ruler onto your little body. It is the only ruler anyone has. Therefore you are still only as tall as you were then, as measured by that ruler.
Scientist measure time by the atomic clock. They assume (believe) that this is an independent standard of time measurement. The problem is that they don't know that this standard of time changed right along with the growing universe. The nature of space itself demands, as evidence shows, that the ruler of time, not time itself, must change as the universe expands, just as the ruler tattooed on a baby would.
..i suppose you think coal can be made in 4000 years as well?...
Why do you think it can NOT be made in that time or less? After all we can make charCOAL in hours today. We can make oil out of vegetable and animal organic matter in hours or days also. What evidence do you have that it MUST take millions of years to do these things?
...Plate tectonics is a theory... we test it often....
Yes, indeed, scientists observe California move a few inches and then extrapolate that movement and come up with utter crap stating that in x number of millions of years California will be next to Alaska. They assume (believe) this rate will be or has been constant for all that time. They do this backwards in time also. It can be observed that the continents sort of fit together like a huge jigsaw puzzle. What cannot be derived from this however is the time scale over which this continental drifting took place. This assumed, not measured or observed. Assuming that rate of present processes can be applied over vast time scales may be correct, but it is nevertheless an unprovable assumption. Most processes observed in nature today are neither linear nor constant.
It is quite conceivable, that when the earth was younger and hotter, the underlying layers where more fluid. This would mean that the continents moved much more easily and faster than we observe them to be doing today.
...but the evolution that scientists talk about is not a fact of evolution, but a theory...
Exactly right! Why then do most text books present it as fact? Why is then so objectionable to present ID as just another theory as well? After all, both are only theories trying to explain the actual facts we observe and measure.
...Ultimately, science and religion must converge to whatever the ultimate "truth" is...
Scientific FACT and interpretation of these facts are two entirely different things. What is actually written in the Bible and how it is interpreted are also often quite different.
Nobody has ever demonstrated a scientific fact to be in conflict to any actual written statement in the Bible. The interpretations of both often do conflict greatly however. Therefore, scientific and biblical TRUTH are NEVER in conflict, only the opinions of men about the meaning of both. Scientists do and of necessity have to make certain assumptions (beliefs). If these assumptions are wrong, then the conclusions will also be wrong. Using computers only obfuscates and/or amplifies the errors.
...But in the absence of evidence for such a thing...
I will include a portion of a reply I made earlier on this subject.
There is evidence that the electromagnetic properties of the medium of space itself have indeed changed dramatically over time. This would demand that certain numbers, ASSUMED to be "constants" have changed as well. One of these is Planck's constant which is measured to be smaller today than when it was first measured. Light-speed is related inversely to that. Light moved much faster through the medium of space, when the Universe was very young, small, dense and hot. Just as sound travels faster in rock or water than in air, so too light traveled faster through a denser Universe.
Since Planck's "constant" appears in equations describing the behavior of atoms, radioactive clocks must also be affected. So there IS evidence that call into question the belief that these "clocks" are truly constant over time.
...This is because there has yet to be any evidence to the contrary....
Well there is evidence that the electromagnetic properties of the medium of space itself have indeed changed over time. This would demand that certain numbers, assumed to be "constants" have changed as well. One of these is Planck's constant which is measured to be smaller today than when it was first measured. Light-speed is related inversely to that. That means light moved much faster through the medium of space, when the Universe was very young, small, dense and hot. Just as sound travels faster in rock or water than in air, so too light traveled faster through a denser Universe.
There is evidence from past light-speed measurements using a gravity time-base, which have shown a decrease since such measurements were first done in the early 1600s. When an atomic time-base clock is used, this is not seen, since the product hc appears to be truly constant, with h and c moving in opposite directions. If a ruler elongates at the same rate as a distance to be measured by it, the distance will always be measured to be the same, even though it really is changing. Gravity equations have neither h nor c in them. Therefore, any clock based on gravity will not be affected by the changes in h or c and measure them directly, without any correction factors needed.
Since Planck's "constant" appears in equations describing the behavior of atoms, radioactive clocks must also be affected. So there IS evidence that call into question the belief that these "clocks" are truly constant over time.
It is interesting that it possible to determine the approximate, highly non-linear function of the slow-down of the speed of light over time. If that correction is applied, the time scales given by the Bible and those given by the atomic clock measurements of radioactivity are not nearly so far apart, so they cannot be attributed to simple errors in measurements and biblical interpretation. The billions and millions shrink down into the range of only thousands.
...I've met many creationists who, for example, thought that fossils were ...
Have you ever met an evolutionist who has actually MADE a fossil, rather than speculate about how they were made? If it cannot be duplicated in the lab or observed in nature TODAY, is is NOT science, but belief (assumptions). Adding lots of time does NOT solve the problem.
The word "assume" is the scientific code word for believe (faith). Can any evolutionist cite a "scientific" paper and its references, of major importance, of say more than five or six pages, that does NOT contain "assume", "believe" or similar expressions?
Science, like every human endeavor, has two components. Facts and belief. All of our lives are governed much more by what we believe than what we actually KNOW for sure. Scientific textbooks ought to carefully separate the facts of science from the beliefs of scientists. Facts should be stated as such, as should beliefs and interpretations of facts be labeled.
...Any time you have evidence that the Earth is older...
To ascertain age, that is to measure time, you have to have a clock. You also have to assume (believe guess) that this clock has ALWAYS ticked at the rate we observe it ticking today. That assumption may or may NOT be correct. It still is and will forever remain an assumption and NOT a measured observed FACT of science.
It just happens that the majority of assumers (believers) labeling themselves scientists BELIEVE that it has ALWAYS ticked at the same rate we observe today. That may be correct, but it still only belief.
If the time yardstick is made of metal or wood, constancy is a reasonable assumption. Since we don't really understand time, how do we know the time yardstick isn't like a rubber band that once was highly stretched and has relaxed a lot by now? IF that is the case, and it could be true, then all time guesses into the past based on the present could be WAY wrong.
...They only "neutral" text you would accept is one that omits substantial information...
No a truly "neutral" text would clearly separate observed, experimental facts from assumptions and interpretations.
from the link:
(... and Halton Arp, while investigating the mystery of the nature of quasars, tried to develop alternative redshift mechanisms, and very few of their fellow scientists acknowledged let alone accepted their work....)
A neutral textbook would first include that there ARE alternate interpretations in the first place and then summarize several of them. A neutral textbook could even state that certain assumptions (beliefs) are not held be the majority of today's scientists. Of course, just because a certain view is held by a majority, doesn't mean that view is correct. The history of science has plenty of examples, where the majority opinion was shown later to be wrong.
again from the link:
(...These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away...)
The 169,000 light year distance is NOT a measured value. We have NO technology to measure such distances. That stated distance, presented as if it were a measured fact, is based on the above mentioned red-shift being interpreted as distance. It is further based on the ASSUMPTION that the speed of light has always been what it is today. We can only measure the speed of light what it happens to be now. Whether it has always been of this value can only be assumed (guessed). Because there is NO way of measuring what it was in the past we have to make assumptions. Most of the time, these assumptions are stated as if they were measured, observed facts. That sort of thing has no place in science, but is OK for religion.
So then, the reference in para. 34 of the reference is based on TWO assumptions, NOT sure measured facts. These assumptions should be clearly stated in any text book. All the present dogmatic evolution textbooks state these assumptions as facts, when they clearly are not. ALL assumptions (beliefs, educated guesses) may or may not be correct, but they will ALWAYS be assumptions until someone actually measures or observes otherwise.
...To be fair the banks arent exactly posting record profits right now...
So, exactly whose fault is that? The tax payers? Why do the tax payers have to bail out *any* business and their greedy or incompetent executives for foolish or downright crooked business decisions? Many of these greedy bastards gave loans to people they knew or should have known would likely not be able to re-pay. Now, instead these rich BMW driving execs, who should be left holding their empty bag, managed to get the taxpayers to fill it up for them again. Of course the equally foolish defaulted borrowers still forfeit their homes. The latter could maybe be excused, because all they saw was the beautiful house they could move into. These fat execs, with their fancy MBAs, who should have known better, just like those crooks from Enron, should all go to prison for playing fast and loose with the money others have entrusted to them.
...Evolution != atheism. There are plenty of religious people who have no problem reconciling evolution...
How would anyone who claims to believe the Bible, in other words a true Christian, reconcile the opening statement of the Bible with evolution?
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Either God really did create the earth and everything in it or it came into existence in some other way. How can anyone who truly believes this very first foundational sentence of the Bible, have any difficulty in believing everything else that follows it?
If there truly is a God capable of creating everything that exists out of absolutely nothing, including all life, then everything else we read in the Bible that we commonly attach the term "supernatural" to, should be believable as well.
...how is atheism an irrational/non-rational belief in the supernatural..
So it now should be a matter of law whether a belief is rational or irrational? Atheism is a belief and as such it doesn't make any difference whether such a belief is termed rational or irrational. A belief defined in terms of what you don't believe is still a belief after all.
...Teaching a particular religious doctrine as fact...
Teaching the doctrines of the religion of secular humanism in public schools appears to be perfectly OK as long as it is labeled science.
... you can't pass a law forcing people to teach creationism....
Why should evolution-ism, creation-ism or any other kind "ism" taught as science? Why not just teach the facts of science and let the student choose from the various interpretations?
For example, it is a fact that astronomers measure what has been called a "red-shift" in the starlight they see in their telescopes. That is really the only fact we have. It is measured cut and dried. Everything else concerning this red shift is pure interpretation and speculation. There are several interpretations which could equally apply to the data we have.
An unbiased textbook writer should first state this fact and then briefly outline the various interpretations and on what assumptions they are based.
A measured fact is that certain elements are what we have labeled in science as radioactive. What the rate of this activity is, how fast it proceeds today and what particles are produced can be accurately measured in the laboratory. A science textbook should concentrate on communicating the actual information we really do know. However, when radioactivity is promoted as a means of measuring the age of rocks and other objects, there are some underlying interpretive assumptions made. The word assumption is a scientific codeword for "educated guess". It is assumed that for dating purposes for example, the rate at which this radioactive decay proceeds for each element, commonly termed "half-life" has always been what we measure it to be today. That may be a valid guess, but it is not something that we really do know. Therefore, such a guess or assumption should not be presented as a known fact.
It is a well-established fact, that there is hardly any place on the surface of this earth, where we do not find fossils. All fossils show imprints of living creatures. It is also a well-established fact that these fossils are only found in sedimentary rocks, that is rocks formed by water action. A good, dogmatism neutral textbook would first present these and other observed facts about fossils. After that, it could give the various interpretations of when and how these fossils might have come into existence and what else they might tell us.
In short than a good neutral textbook with no dogmatic axe to grind would present the scientific facts we do observe and measure. Only after the facts are presented should ALL the interpretations and assumptions, clearly labeled as such we presented. Of course, realistically that will never happen.
...making a go of fusion power,...
has always been two decades in the future and will likely continue to be so for the next 500 years. However, there is a working fusion reactor 93 million miles from here. We could spend our efforts in using its energy directly instead. After all, that's what we are using now. It is the solar energy converted by plants and animals of long ago, that we call fossil fuels.
If the "terrorists" didn't have the oil money from the US and the rest of the industrialized world, the misfits that made 911 happen would not have had enough money to buy the plane tickets to the US. So yes, getting free from the oil's slavery would be a good "war" goal.
....Yeah I'm fairly certain Obama will be the next president...
Really? May I look into your crystal ball? I'm fairly certain that both the Republicrats and the Democans have the same goal. That goal is to screw over the common people. They only disagree in how to best do this without starting a revolution.
The $700 billion proposed financial bailout illustrates this. Both parties agree to help prop up the banks. Have you EVER met a poor banker? That is an oxymoron. BOTH parties want to guarantee that these bankers can continue to afford their BMWs and other luxuries. Will anyone who cannot make their mortgage payments will still forfeit their house to the lenders? Most likely yes.
So in the end, does it really make a difference who is elected? Those in power will always do everything they can to stay in power. The big moneybags will ensure that no meaningful reform will ever be enacted by the politicians they have bought and paid for.
...You can say it looks designed all you want, but that doesn't make it so...
If it looks like it is designed and acts as if it is ordered and controlled by immutable laws and complex information, it must be designed. You know if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....
(...Ok then, show me where in the Bible it says what's going to happen tomorrow? No?...)
How about Global Warming? I mean REAL nasty global warming!
Isa 30:26 And the moonlight shall be like the light of the sun. And the sun's light shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day of binding up, Jehovah binding the break of His people, and healing the wound of His blow.
Rev 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his bowl onto the sun. And it was given to him to burn men with fire.
Rev 16:9 And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, the One having authority over these plagues and they did not repent to give Him glory.
There are very specific prophecies, not at all vague, that the nation of Israeli would be re-born as a sovereign nation after there was none since the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD and scattered the inhabitants all over the empire. Jesus predicted this destruction 38 years before it happened. In 1948, this is EXACTLY what happened and there is now a state of Israel. Also, as predicted, Jerusalem would once more be under sovereign Israeli control. That also happened, but only later, in 1967. The Jews never had sovereignty since before Jesus time. Furthermore, it was predicted that Jerusalem would be stumbling stone and rock of offense of all nations. What other city do you know of, where a zoning change threatens world peace? These are NOT self-fulfilling prophecies.
(..Why would the Mayans build huge temples for their gods if they weren't real? Or the Egyptians build enormous pyramids? ..)
These are all relics of the past, but the Bible is being translated and distributed actively today, more than *any* other writing.
(..caring about who we are and being proud of what we as humans have accomplished..)
Accomplished the building of destructive power such as the world has never seen before? Jesus predicts that this destruction ability of mankind would lead to extinction of all life, if God did not personally intervene at the last moment. Accomplished the destruction of marriage and the home? The trampling of women underfoot by Muslims and some of the organized church is something to be proud of? Can we be proud as a race that the whole planet is being polluted and poisoned by our selfish greed? We did not make this world. It is NOT ours. One of these days the Landlord is going to come back to His property and He will NOT be happy.
Is it not instructive to you that advanced beings from other parts of the universe have been careful NOT to make contact with us humans? Is that why all our SETI efforts have been in vain?
Even in our very imaginative and fun to watch science fiction, we export our warlike and greedy nature to galaxies far far away. Death and destruction is still very much a part of what we imagine the far future to be. Is it not instructive to you that the ONE advanced being, Jesus Christ, sent from God was hated and murdered by man? Do you really think that eternal advanced intelligences would share technology with us that is so superior to what we even can imagine, we call it supernatural? How did Jesus control the weather or conquer death?
Right now, we humans are in such a sad shape that death is actually a blessing. If death would not remove evil despots and governments, would our planet not already be more of a hell than it already is?
How about telling me what we have to be so proud of?
Here is a very much contrasting vision of the far distant future you may read about in the last part of the Bible.
(Rev 21:3) And I heard a great voice out of Heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they will be His peopl
.. it was simply a QRS Player System making the piano play.....
Well so far at least, we human mice are still very much inside the universe, the piano. Even if the piano were a "player piano", someone still composed the music and cut the roll. Someone also built the piano.
Even if you do not accept the Bible as truth, or as God's message to mankind, you certainly should be able to consider that it is a very unusual book. Actually it is a collection of 66 books penned by 40 different writers over a time span of at least 1500 years. Yet it has a very unified central authorship and message concerning the dealings of God with mankind. Much of it depicts human history written down before it ever took place. Some of this history, written in advance, is taking place right before our very eyes in our time. We can read the content of tomorrow's newspaper headlines in some of the passages of the Bible.
For thousands of years, all human writing had to be laboriously copied by hand. When the art of printing was finally invented in 1439 by Johannes Gutenberg, guess which human writing was first printed? Guess which human writing is distributed more widely than any other and translated into more languages and dialects, by far, than any other? Guess which book its enemies have endeavored to destroy more than any other? There are many religious writings, but none of them come even remotely close to the content and distribution of this remarkable book.
In the King James Version of the Old Testament, the phrase "saith the LORD" occurs 802 times, according to my computer search program. Did God really say those things or are these 802 lies? In Genesis alone, the phrase "God said" occurs 28 times.
Why would a book so full of lies engender such huge human effort, generation after generation, over centuries of time? On the other hand, if God REALLY did communicate HIS truth in these writings, it would behoove us dinky little, arrogant human creatures to pay attention to what the Creator of the Universe is telling us.
...My goal wasn't to proove that there is a god just that there exists logacal reasons to do....
There is no way to PROVE anything. All we can do is to look at whatever evidence we have and then decide whether to BELIEVE that evidence or not.
There was a family of mice who lived all their lives in a piano, just as we live in our fragments of the universe. And to them in the piano-world came the music of the instrument filling all the dark places with sound and harmony. At first the mice were very much impressed by it. They drew comfort and wonder from the thought that there was Someone who made the music -- though invisible to them-- above, yet close to them. And they loved to think of the Great Player whom they could not see.
Then one day a daring mouse climbed up part of the piano and returned very thoughtful. He had discovered how the music was made. Wires were the secret; tightly stretched wires of graduated lengths which trembled and vibrated. They must revise all their old beliefs: none but the most conservative could any longer believe in the Unseen Player.
Later, another explorer carried the explanation further. Hammers were the secret; dozens of hammers dancing and leaping on the wires. This was a more complicated theory, but it all went to show that they lived in a purely mechanical and mathematical world.
The Unseen Player came to be thought of as a myth. But the Pianist continued to play the piano.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Go out of the light polluted city and look into the starry night sky and hear the Creator of the Universe play the Music of His Majesty, as He has since the beginning of time.
...There is no such thing as Truth...
Really? I don't think there is even ONE human being alive who REALLY believes that. Anyone who did not, wouldn't be alive very long.
You mean you don't look both ways before crossing the street to determine the truth of a car coming toward you? Getting run over by an illusion can be hazardous to your health.