>That's utter drivel. My cat knows the difference between being cold and wet and miserable and scared and being cuddled up before the fire in a pair of loving arms.
On the other hand, I can appreciate the beauty of a snowbank in -40 degrees celsius weather. The cat could not possibly care any less, and would far rather be inside.
>My cat will signal her appreciation in a completely unequivocal manner by purring and loving up. Her level of appreciation is different, but it is not lacking.
True, but, I think it is quite significant that the cat is happy in a purely physical way. I can be happy when I am warm, well fed, and not thirsty. But I can also be happy even if I'm colder than I'd like, hungrier than I'd like, and thirstier than I'd like.
>Humans are simply animals. We're smarter, certainly, but there is zero evidence that we are different in any other way that makes any difference at all.
Which is why we're here discussing this on the internet, and not sniffing each other's butts and picking lice out of our hair. Because we're not any different from the rest of the animals, who also have worldwide computer networks and use them to talk to animals on the other side of the world whom they have never perceived in any way besides the imagination and cognitave communication (i.e. no physical senses, you have to use your brain to communicate since reading and writing are required). Do animals have imagination? Do animals have an appreciation for anything which doesn't physically affect them (make them feel good)? I think there's ample evidence of humans being far superior to animals. You're just not looking at it.
>Ecological change is usually on the order of hundreds of thousands of years.
Dr Rex: "But, you see, kids, we dinosaurs don't have anything to worry about since ecological change takes plenty of time.. we'll have a chance to adapt. I mean, fast ecological change is totally unrealistic.. you'd require a comet hitting the earth or something."
Little velociraptor in the back of the class: "Umm, sir, what's that large flaming ball descending from the sky at this very moment?"
Personally I doubt all change is slow and gradual. Whether or not the change is our fault, well.. that's certainly important. I believe God gave us the world and said "take care of it" and so if we're wrecking it then we're failing in what we were told to do. But the only question is whether or not it's because of man that global warming is happening... and from various things I've read, I personally think it's being way overly pessimistic to think man's responsible for all the global warming.
p.s. I disbelieve in evolution, just so you know. p.p.s. And for further information that some people may not already have, disbelieving in evolution is not the same as disbelieving in science.
>As I noted in another comment, this seems to be connected to the cafe gaming >environment, which maybe makes the enjoyment more intense (or whatever, I don't really >know). If it is that way, then we can just ask(/regulate) the shopkeepers to pay some >attention to what their customers are doing.
Then again, I think the exact same thing is true of a bar. Why is it that all these people can go to the bar, and get drunk (with the bar's staff being quite happy to continue shelling out more drinks as long as the cash keeps coming in), and then once the customer is completely drunk, they walk out to their car, and on the way home they run into and kill someone.. and none of the blame goes to the bartender..?
I'm not saying it's all the bartender's fault - on the contrary, it's the drunk's fault for getting drunk. But if anybody (read: the bartender) cared about either the drunk or the person he killed, they either wouldn't have let the guy get totally drunk in the first place, or at the very least would have tried to make sure the guy took a taxi home or something.
It seems to me it would be a little like a gun store owner seeing two guys get into a fight out in front of his store, and then one guy ducks out of the fight to come into the store and buy a gun... and the owner sells it to him. Sure, it's true that the guy who then proceeds to leave the store and shoot the other guy he was fighting with is the one responsible for the death. But the gun store owner knew what he was going to do with it, so shouldn't that count as being accomplice to murder or something?
I don't have a problem with beer, or guns, or video games.. if you use them properly. And people only start dying from them when you *don't* use them properly.
>Get him playing sport instead. He'll be healthier, he'll concentrate better at his schoolwork, he'll develop more social skills.
That's err... totally debatable. How is it healthier if you keep getting a broken bone every couple of days, and end up having to retire at thirty because you've got so many aches and pains?
>If he wants to play computer games then fine, if he wants to buy games with his own money then let him, but don't indoctrinate him into it.
Quite. But, same goes for football.. I think there's been plenty of people already who made thei kids play football or soccer or baseball or wrestling or whatever, when the kid never wanted to.
Besides.. it's not like you can't play computer *and* play some kind of sports - even if you're only playing the sport in order to exercise. Which is probably better for you than playing it professionaly anyway.
>What we need is some form of mandatory training on personal responsibility in the modern world. But hey, that's just my opinion.
Yeah, it's supposed to be called "parents":)
IMHO putting a kid into an environment where s/he is surrounded by other kids of the same age for what is it, 8 hours a day or so (I didn't attend public school so I don't even know), has got to be one of the dumbest things I've heard of.
First off, kids are kind of dumb. I know what I'm talking about; I was one, not that long ago. Second, kids in a group are even dumber than kids by themselves (I doubt anyone except possibly a kid who's currently in denial will argue with me there). And it gets worse the less supervision you have, especially supervision by someone *in authority*, which teachers aren't really since there's not much they can do if the kid does something 'bad'. Assuming, of course, that the teacher even notices.
So, instead of actually spending the time to tell the kid what's right and wrong, you're throwing them in together with a bunch of other kids who also don't know anything, and basically letting them figure it out for themselves.
Honestly, if someone suggested that we should teach math by collecting a group of people (kids) who *don't* know it, and putting them all in a room together for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, and letting them figure it out for themselves, how could anyone be surprised if it took them forever to figure out calculus? (Or if they never did, which might be less surprising)
So why be surprised when it takes them forever to figure out responsibility for themselves?
I'm not saying that 'all the evil in the world troday is a result of parents abdicating their responsibility to teach their kids'.. but I do think that even if you *are* trying, their spending most of their time each day with other kids their age without hearing a word about adult responsibility or morals has got to be undermining whatever you're trying to teach them.
I mean.. unless you're *trying* to teach them how to backstab their friends in order to steal boyfriends/girlfriends or later husbands/wives, how to ensure that relationships never last more than a few months, how to snub the unpopular people, and how to suck up to the popular people.
Yeah, but what *I'd* like to know is, how do you classify a schizophrenic whose personalities are both extroverts, but always spend their time talking to each other?
Here Thing states that everyone is a creep. From this we can deduce that Thing is a creep.
Thus my statement:
(2) Thing is a creep.
Next Thing states:
(3) "I no longer have relationships because I don't need creeps."
Herein we see what appears to be a very sensible statement. Ah, but there is a problem, because the next statement Thing makes is:
(4) "I like the idea of soul mates; mine is myself."
Now, from 1 and 2 we see that Thing is a creep, and from 3 we see that Thing does not wish to have a relationship with a creep, but in 4 Thing states that his (note: the term "his" is used because it's shorter than "his/her", not because I actually have any idea of Thing's gender) soulmate is himself, which of course means that either 3 or 4 is false. Children, have no fear, for the loss of Thing from the pool of available singles isn't really such a bad thing after all.. since he's an illogical creep;)
(Umm, sorry, my post didn't actually have a point, I just thought it was kind of funny:-) )
>In fact, I prefer to see introversion as the positive difference of the clingy extrovert who can't stand being alone...
Aaactually.. I think it's probably something more like this, on a scale of 1 to 4:
1: Introvert who doesn't ever talk to anybody. 2: Introvert who has some friends, albeit not to many, who talks to people, but not too frequently, and enjoys being alone, although he also doesn't mind spending time with people he knows. 3: Extrovert who has quite a few friends, but not too many really close ones, who talks to people quite frequently and enjoys it, but also doesn't mind spending time alone. 4: Extrovert who doesn't ever *not* talk to someone.
I think both 1 and 4 are unbalanced cases, where the person isn't just exhibiting their personality.. it's more like they have a problem, and reverting to which behaviour is the easiest, is less work than fixing the problem. The two in the middle, on the other hand, are how you'll behave - depending on whether you're introverted or extroverted - when you're actually making an effort.
You're introverted? - okay, that's fine, but it won't kill you (in fact you may even find you actually enjoy it, as long as you don't go overboard) to get to know some people.
You're extroverted? - okay, that's fine, but it won't kill you (in fact it will probably help, as long as you don't spend *too* much time at it) to spend time alone thinking now and then.
Anyway, that's just my own two bits on the matter.. and in case anyone's wondering, yeah, I suspect that I am introverted, and I also suspect (although this comes from 'tickle' and the mensa self-test, neither of which I'd be willing to bet money on if it came right down to it, simply because they are both a case of self-test) that I'm a fair bit above average intelligence. But, personally, I don't think intelligence is the only important trait (*OR* the most important) to have. I think it's just one part of the whole, which is *also* why I think that introversion and extroversion are simply parts of each person - some lean more to one or the other, but we all *have* both sides. And I think we all *need* both sides.
"So why do you answer a question with a question? By doing so you dodge the question of why not prove something before believing in it. Because if you do it backwards you will end up believing whatever you cultural heritage suggests."
No. I'm just asking the very same question you are, except with evolution as the focal point istead of the bible. Why do most people today who believe in evolution believe in it? For the same reason most people seem to believe in their religion; because someone else told them, not ebcause they decided it for themselves. I'm just saying that it doesn't matter whether you start with the bible or start with evolution, you have to start *somewhere*, and work from there. You CANNOT prove every single thing you believe. After all, we *could* all just be inside a computer right now, like in the Matrix. How would we tell the difference..? So, at SOME point, you have to have some faith - even if you're a scientist (read: skeptic;) ), and work from there; maybe if you discover that your original faith didn't work (as I maintain evolution doesn't, and as you maintain the bible doesn't) *then* come up with a different idea to replace it. You can't always wait until you've proven something right before you start using it.
"As far as your question goes - Ues starting by questioning evolution or old earth assumptiong is recommended."
Sure, but all I'm saying is tht you are doing the *exact same thing I am*: someone taught you about evolution and so you started from that. Someone taught m about creation and so I started from that. We're both (hopefully) openminded enough to listen to the other guy, and to do our best to try to decide for ourselves whether or not our starting position was the right one. I maintain that mine was, and you maintain that yours was, so it's sort of a stalemate.
"For example, any physical geologic separation of life forms such as a continent, island or mountain range are attendent with variations of life forms and formation of related species. Look at Madagascar, Australia, Gelapagos islands, or Sierra Nevada [pnas.org] mountains. Predicted and actually required by evolution but not predicted or even suggested by creationism."
I don't believe that Noah had one of every single species of animal on his boat. Therefore, many of the subspecies of animals must have come from the animals on the boat. Wolves and Great Danes are related. If you left Great Danes long enough, would Wolves eventually develop? I don't know a whole lot about genetics, but I suspect so. So does that mean that if you left Great Danes long enough, turnips would develop? Err.. that's just a tiny little slight leap of faith, friend. And dogs turning into turnips has not been proven in the labratory; only great danes turning into wolves has.
"Doctor Hovind has not made _any_ contributions to science or geology. He has no formation training in science."
Looking out the window is training in science. That was my point.
Darwin was not a scientist by training, but you don't ridicule him for it. In fact, if I remember correctly, most of Darwin's training was in religion.
Secondly, even those who criticize Hovind's doctorate do *NOT* claim he hasn't got one; they just say it's not relevant, because err.. guess what.. it's a doctorate in religious education.
Something seems odd there, if you ask me.
If Dr Hovind *is* lyin about his education, or purposely using it to make himself sound better, or whatever, then I agree, I should certainly look critically at his theories. But I am *already* looking critically at his theories, and would be even if I thought he had a PhD for every branch of science there is. I'm simply saying it's a better idea to judge a man by whether what he says and does makes sense, not by whether he has a cool letter or two tacked on before or after his name. That goes for evolutionists and creationists - and I don't believe everything the creationists say is right, either:)
>Seems to me the more honest approach would be to start questioning and believe in the Bible when you could prove it right?
Or why not do the same with evolution? It's still a theory, even its defenders don't actually claim it has been proven. So why not disbelieve it all the way until it is proven, instead of believing it until it's diproven? It all depends where you start from; I am starting from the Bible instead of from evolution.
>First Hovind is not a Geologist and second he is not a Doctor.
Yes, I have heard some people say he's not a doctor, but that doesn't matter much to me anyway - if he knows what he's talking about I don't care if he has a Dr in front of his name, and if he *doesn't* know what he's talking about I don't care if he has a Dr in front of his name. And, personally, I think he's contributed plenty enough to the field of science that he ought to be a Doctor even if he isn't. I don't implicitly trust Dr Hovind, but some of his theories make sense to me, so I am sticking with them until I find something better:)
>The interesting aspect about unconformities [is they] require a serial string of geologic events each taking long periods of time such as...
Umm.. here's another theory. What if, since obviously those rocks are sedimentary rock which means they formed from mud, what if the unconformities happened *while the mud was soft* (or at least, not entirely turned to rock) instead of after it turned to rock? If it happened that way, it wouldn't have to be slow. Plus it would work better because rock doesn't like to be bent after it's hard.
Again, I haven't read a lot of actual science studies on geology; all I read is the news and of course basic science textbooks, both which are more in the habit of teaching what Mr. X thinks that Y evidence indicates, rather than actually stating the evidence in question; all I'm saying is, if you *start off* by thinking that evolution happened, then you *have* to think the earth is old, and so every time you see anything around you, you'll be (possibly even subconsciously) thinking 'look, layers! that must have taken a long time since the earth is old'. Whereas if you're a creationist, the earth only *has* to be 10,000 years old or so, which means you'll look at it and go 'look, layers! The earth is fairly young so that must have happened quickly'.
Your basic philosophy changes the way you look at the world in *everything*, not just in one thing. I'm not throwing out all of science. I'm just saying a lot of the interpretations people take from the raw data are wrong (or maybe I should say "skewed").
Have you read Flatland? That book by A. Square, about the 2 dimensional place? If you think the world is flat, imagining falling off the edge is easy. If you think the world is round, imagining falling off the edge is.. hard.
>Well, there are literally hundreds of thousands of very educated scientists who, for hundreds of years, have put their entire lives into the study of these things.
And George Washington's doctors were highly educated and motivated. And they wanted to save hish life. And they killed him, by bleeding him to death. I do not disagree that they are highly intelligent, trained, and motivated. I just disagree with some of their conclusions. Being smart does not necessarily make you right. Besides, if you wake up and smell the coffee, you'll realize there are also plenty of scientists around who disagree with many different parts of the evolution theory:) Not to mention, if you pay attention *at all* you will realize that creationists trying to get into geology or biology or anything that has even the slightest bit to do with evolution run into *major* opposition in universities today. i.e. it's pretty hard to find a well educated guy who doesn't believe in evolution.. but it's not (or at the very leats, not just) because evolution is right, it's because getting through school and remaining a creationist is.. difficult.
>In fact all living things share a tremendous amount of genetic material. What this indicates, very strongly, is that there was a time when our ancestors and those of other living things converged to the same creatures.
It can just as easily indicate that it was the same God who created them all and he saw no reason to make them totally different. How useful would fish be if we couldn't even eat them, because of biological differences, anyway? It might also be intersting to note the search for a "helpmeet" that occurred in Genesis. Adam was supposed to find someone to be his helper. He looked through all the animals, but none suited him.. if the animals had been *completely* different from him in every way possible, I should think he wouldn't have even bothered looking. Your perception depends on your eyes. And which shade of rose-coloured sunglasses you choose to wear.. Evolutionist, or Christian, or whatever else:) The tough part comes when you try to look at the sun without your sunglasses.
>The emergence of that animal in the womb actually mirrors the evolution of the animal being created, much like god is reminiscing on the way that animal evolved every time a new one is conceived.
Err.. what? Oh no, are you talking about that dumb thing where the fetus supposedly looks like a fish, amphibian, reptile, and then mammal (usful acronym: memorize FARM and you got it)? That idea was mostly based on a guy in the late 1800s who actually purposely doctored images of fetuses in the womb in order to make them look more like fish.. Those are not gill pouches, dude, they're cheeks... It's also interesting to ntoe that the FARM idea helps to dehumanize fetuses in many people's minds (here I pause for the collective groans of abortionists). Yes, I am also pro-life. I actually like to call it pro-choice, as in pro the baby's choice to live, myself, just to confuse everybody;);)
>God does not send a sperm that looks just like the dad (with head, feet, belly-button and all) into the womb to grow into a new man. He throws a seed and let's the seed bloom. Why would he do anything differently with a planet than he does with his most loved creaturess?
Because he said he did. And my theory is that until you prove he *didn't*, I'm sticking with that.. which btw seems to be the same idea that evolutionists have; until I prove evolution wrong they'll stick with it. So in this case I see no difference between us except the starting point; I'm willing to guess you probably grew up learning evoltuion, whereas I grew up learning creation. Now we are adults (or at least I am, and judging from the intelligence of your post I assume you are too) and we have to come to our own conclusions. I hope I can say I am a scientist, a seeker of kowledge; the way my mind works is that I t
>Your fundamental question comes down to whether or not to place your faith in science or in the Bible.
Evolution is not the only part of science. I did not say I refuse all of science. Evolution is only one theory. I happen to think it's wrong, and stupid to boot. That doesn't mean I don't believe in science.
>It's clear that you're letting your ignorance of the natural world strengthen your belief in the Bible (the sun shrinking as it ages?).
How can the sun not shrink as it ages? So far as I know, the way it works is for matter to be converted to energy somehow. Now, that may be incorrect, and maybe there's another explanation; but as I said, that is not the only reason I have for doubting the "4.5 billion years" age model.
>There's nothing terrible about a little ignorance -- no one knows everything! Recognize, though, that most of your questions have been properly answered already -- you just haven't found them.
On the othe hand, maybe I have, and it's you who haven't:) Questioning has to be done on both sides. Please don't patronize me.
>You should understand that the scientific method enables the evolution of ideas. People come up with crazy theories about how things work, and those theories are tested and retested many, many times under different circumstances, by different people in different times.
I understand the scientific method.
>Those theories that stand up to all of this scrutiny don't necessarily represent the "right" answers, but they are certainly our most accurate understanding of the world.
Of course. I am merely questioning (very blatantly and defiantly:) ) the currently most popular theory of origin in acedemic circles. That doesn't mean I despise science.
>The Bible is completely separate from all of this. There's no testable ideas, and nothing in the way of useful scientific knowledge or theories.
If the creation week is not testable, then neither is evolution... The rain of fire which is talked about as one of the plagues that was brought down on the egyptians, we would now assume to be meteorites. It is interesting to note that at the time of the KJV translation, many scoffers ridiculed the bible for this "rain of fire", claiming that since nothing like it had been observed in nature at the time, it was therefore poppycock. Now, however, we know that meteorites are possible.. and so now, of course, the skeptics claim that it was "just a plain old meteor shower" and had nothing to do with God.. Ah, so if it's impossible, that proves it isn't true, and if it *is* possible, that proves it isn't true? hmmm...:)
>You're doing yourself a great disservice in ignoring the thousands of years of scientific work done by our ancestors to bring you the world that we have today.
I'm not ignoring thousands of years of scientific work. At the most I am ignoring hundreds - the theory of evolution is very new. Please, if you don't get anything else I am saying, get this: I am disputing EVOLUTION. Not all of science in general. Evolution is *one* theory, which just so happens to have pervaded many other areas of science, because it is such a broad and important theory. If you look at the world in other ways, namely creation science, it changes a lot of things, most especially in geology. But many of these things can be explained as well by creation science as by evolution - it just turns out looking very different depending how you look at it. That doesn't mean I dispute physics, or mathematics, or a whole lot of biology, or plenty of geology (some depends on evolution, some doesn't), or computer science for that matter:p Hopefully you get my point: I like science, I love science, I just don't think that the theory of evolution is correct.
"The only question I would pose to you at this point is this: Tell me exactly where in the Bible it states how long Adam and Eve lived before the fall. Sure geneologies after the fall may calculate to 6000 rough years, but what about inside the Garden?"
Gen 5:3 "and Adam lived 130 years..." and Gen 5:4-5 "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years; and he begat sons and daughters; and all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died."
I am assuming here that when it says "930 years" it means 930 years from the time he was created. I suppose you might be able to argue that it means 930 years from the time he was kicked out of the garden, which could mean the world is however much older, but it seems much more likely that it dates from when he was created. Interesting to note, this means Adam could have been in the garden for anywhere up to a maximum of 110 years or so before he was kicked out, if you assume that cain and able were born after they left the garden, that they were close in age, and that they were around twenty when they died, and that Seth was born right away after that. That whole part of it is a bit iffy - I personally don't think it's extremely important how long Adam and Eve were in the garden, but it's interesting to note that it could have been quite a few years.
"The allegories, metaphors and guidelines in sacred books can be extremely profound and insightful, but ultimately one should use his own judgement in the face of possibly contradictory evidence. Think for yourself!"
Indeed: I only say the same to any who are raised in the public school system and learn evolution the same way many people learn religion:)
Don't just accept what the professor says because he knows more than you. *Just* because he knows more than you doesn't make him right. Or the Pastor. Or the Pope (who, by the way, I positively denounce as being the head of the church, since I am a protestant and that's the point of being a protestant:) ). Or the president. Or whoever.
Sure, it's *easier* to let someone else think for me... but, thanks very much, I'd rather see a car drive safely down the road first before I trust myself to it, and by the same token I'd rather know the basics of how carbon dating woks before I trust it, either. Because I have heard almost as much about the problems with carbon dating, myself, as I have about what makes it work properly, so until I know how it works for myself, I'm going to stick with the theory that works best under my current knowledge; which is young earth. Furthermore, and while this is not the only reason (as I have already mentioned) it's also not something I am willing to throw off instantly whenever another idea comes up, I *have* had prayers of mine answered in entirely unexpected and unlikely ways. Faith may be the f-word to some people, but despite how much I resent *needing* to rely on someone else sometimes, I also understand that it is necessary.
But here's my theory; alway be willing to re-evaluate things. Never hesitate to ask a question because you're afraid of what the answer might tell you. And that goes for everybody, atheists and christians and buddhists and everybody. If you let other people do all your thinking for you, what are you but a machine?
"Anyways, I may not agree with your views or opinions, but I must say I have the highest respect for the fact that you are willing to question them. All too often I see people with religious believes cover their ears and start going "lalalala! I can't hear you!" when their beliefs are challenged, so kudos for actually inviting a challenge:) "
Indeed. Unfortunately, I find it's quite the same no matter what religion you're talking about, and in fact, pretty well the same when you're talking about atheists and/or evolutionists; most would rather just not listen than to bother thinking about it.
Anyway, thanks for the links and I will definitely take a look at them.
As for the skeptics thingie umm well.. there may be some interesting things in there, but like you said, most of them are just plain silly (for instance, "Of all clean birds ye shall eat. But these are they of which ye shall not eat:... the bat.--Dt.14:11, 18" So what? Who says bats are not birds? Umm.. today's scientists. There is no reason for the definition of a bird not to be "anything with wings" if we wanted it to be, it's a case of definition, not of the bat being incorrectly classified)... of course this is just a cursory glance.
Also interesting to note the promise that God made to Abram about his seed being numbered like the stars.. many people (christians included) seem to think that was supposed to mean there would be as many Israelites as the stars. That could easily be a figurative number, not a literal number; but, I don't think that's what it was. *I* think God used signs in the stars to show Abram the story of the gospel, i.e. he explained to him about his *seed* ("as in one seed, not many seeds" like it explains in Galatians 3 I think it was), Jesus Christ. Not seed as in Israel would be as great in numbers as the stars, but rather his seed as in Jesus Christ (which it says in Galatians, so I'm not just pulling this theory out of my hat) would be explained in the stars.Also, right after th bit about the seed and the stars, it says "Abram believed and it was counted unto him for righteousness" - it also says in the new testament "there is ONE name by which men shall be saved, the Lord Jesus Christ"; Abram's believing God in that his descendants would be great in number would not be counted to him for righteousness. If God was talking about Jesus when he said that, however, then Abram's believing Him would be counted for righteousness (which it was). If you don't believe me read Galatians, because that's what Paul says about the passage there:)
Anyway, just an example of how some of those skeptic things are based on theology which isn't necessarily right, i.e., I agree with their points but they don't do anything to disprove the bible, just certain incorrect doctrines that some people claim come from the bible:)
Prelude note whih I actually am writing now just after finishing the rest of this:
Umm.. well, anyway, I hope I'm not rambling here, it's sort of late and I probably shouldn't be writing at this hour.. I need to get myself a designated writer to send me to bed when I'm too sleep-deprived to safely write:D
"Not at all. I was, instead, saying that it could just as easily have been created 300 years ago. There is considerable physical evidence (geologic, fossil, radiocarbon, etc..) that shows that the earth is billions of years old. If it were created in such a way that we couldn't tell the difference, it would be just as easy to create it 300 years ago to look that way as it would be to create it 6000 years ago to look that way. Hell, it could have been created 2 days ago and our own memories are as much a synthesis as the surroundings around us. That was my point. If you believe in creationism, you must accept these possibilities as equally likely to any arbitrary starting point."
Ah, okay, I see what you're saying.. you're thinking that I mean all that "considerable evidence" was purposely created to make us think that the earth is billions of years old, when it's actually 6000?
That's not what I am saying. What I am saying is much more offensive to evolutionists than that;) And, hopefully, a little bit more logical. I am saying that all that supposed evidence that the world is billions of years old is nothing of the sort, and that it is an either intentional or unintentional result of the assumptions people make when they start off doing things. Like carbon dating, for instance. I don't know enough about it to be absolutely certain one way or the other, mind. But from what I do know, I suspect that it wouldn't be hard for scientists to argue that things are millions of years old if they want to; and at the same time, I think it is possible for them to argue that things are only six thousand years old. *Science* is about *observable* facts; the fact that we are here simply means we were created. How exactly it was done is much harder to distinguish, and if you really *want* to believe it, you can look at that very same evidence and see it in two (more, actually) entirely different ways that things could come about. For instance, we have fossils which we discover under dirt and which we date as being certain ages. How are these thingsdated? No, not always by carbon dating. It seems that they are frequently dated based on what layer of rock they are found in. Umm, okay. So how do you tell how old the layer of rock is? Well, see, this particular layer of rock usually has this particular kind of fossil in it...
That sounds like circular reasoning to me. If it isn't, please explain.
Furthermore, Evolution does not offer any actual method for the original creation of life, except that it spontaneously arose out of rock soup. I had heard that the spontaneous generation of life was a theory that went out in the 13th century or so (like, before the flat-earth theory), but I guess not.
"Evolution is a provable science today. DNA analysis can show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, different specialized adaptations in members of the same animal species that inhabit different parts of the globe. Farmers can selectively breed features in and out of both animals and plants. And the list goes on. Regardless of whether you believe in intelligent design, it is absolutely clear that the mechanics of natural selection do exist and are in operation today. Period. It can not be argued."
That's micro evolution. I believe in micro evolution. What I don't believe is *macro* evolution, which says that everything came from a turnip. I don't see how it can be possible for turnips to turn into dogs, or dogs to turn into people, and that *hasn't* been proven in a lab. There are plenty of problems with macro evolution. micro != macro. Sure, you can keep adding billions worth of years in order to make those ludicrously low chances seem less
Oh.. and.. two other things; one, sorry if the last post was a little long:p but, I had a few things to say.
And two, just so you know, the fact that I don't believe aliens are even a remote possibility doesn't mean I am uninterested in space travel or science fiction, much to the detriment of my free time, which of course usually gets split between computer games and reading. I just finished David Drake's 'With the Lightnings', John Ringo's 'Through the Looking Glass', and John Ringo + Tom umm... Kratman?'s 'Watch on the Rhine', and that was just the last couple of weeks worth of reading:)
Incidentally, if you haven't heard of John Ringo (what?! get out there and read his books! for the most part, they rock, although personally I would prefer a lot less immorality i.. sleeping around), he alo has some interesting things to say about Global Warming.. I believe he has a rant up about it on his website. Umm.. on second thought, after looking for it again, I don't see it there.. well, it *Was* there.. and it's an interesting read if you can find it. This is the website, I dunno if it's still there or not and don't have time to look around for it myself at the moment, sorry:
(there's a number of other interesting articles there too, and although I don't agree with everything he says, I certainly appreciate the amount of thought he puts into his writing.)
Certainly not - I hope (and, in fact, pray:) ) that I will never be so closed-minded as to question my own beliefs, and someone else doing so is even less surprising. I like that one quote from Neverwinter Nights (when you talk to Aribeth at the beginning of the second part of the main storyline) which went something like: "It is never wrong to question; what matters is your answers."
Now, hopefully I can at least give you something to think about...
>It's really not my habit to disagree abrasively with anyone BUT:... HOW could YOU of all people ever believe in such fairytales?
Because, from my understanding of geology (which I freely admit isn't the best in the world), it is possible that the world is a whole lot younger than evolutionists say it is.
And on the flip side, I can see some good arguments as to why it's *not* as old as they say - I would actually like to get into some good discussions with a geologist sometime to find out how well these arguments stand up.
For one thing, if the world is 4 billion years old let's say (I don't remember for sure what the mainstream theory of evolution says, but if I remember correctly it's somewhere around that), then obviously the sun is at least as old. The sun happens to burn fuel at a ridiculous rate, which isn't surprising since it's basically a ball of fire. Now, if the sun is burning, that means it's getting smaller, which means it used to be bigger (obviously), so *FOUR* billion years ago (which is a really fricking long time) it's bound to have been big enough to cause problems for the solar system, isn't it? An interesting question. Now, that (or other similar questions) doesn't necessarily prove the earth is young (I don't have the time to argue the point at the moment, unfortunately:p Real life - and Mercedes Lackey's "Take a Thief" beckon). But basically, from what I have seen and read, I see no good indication that proves the earth is as *old* as the evolutionists say - and personally, I have started from the assumption that the Bible is correct until someone proves it wrong. Some could argue that that's a stupid starting position, but I can also argue that starting from the position that it's wrong until proven right is equally stupid - and besides, in anything provable, the bible has so far been correct (by all means, point it out to me if you think that's not true - as I said, I hope that I will never hesitate to ask questions because I am afraid of the answers).
>There's nothing wrong with having religious beliefs, but it is important, in this day and age, to >draw the line between mythology (which can be beautiful and moving, and has its place in every >religion, but it is just that) and reality.
Do you believe in aliens? I don't. They don't make a lot of sense if you believe in a creator who wrote the bible - he'd have mentioned them, I think. It's *possible*, I suppose, that he made aliens too. But I doubt it.
Do you believe in fire breathing dragons? I do. Have you heard of Dinosaurs? That's a new name, and I think they used to be called dragons. And breathing fire? Well, why not? There are bugs that can breathe fire (bombadier beetles). And since I don't believe that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, that's not a problem for me. Besides, the bible talks about dinosaurs - "Behemoth" is a creature it mentions, who is a very large land animal. Ah hah, an Elephant! Err, no. it says Behemoth has a tail like a cedar tree, in the bible (Elephants do not have tails like cedar trees. More like a cedar twig...). Can you think of any large land animal besides a dinosaur, which has a tail like a cedar tree? Rhinocerous? Hippopotamus(sp)? I can't - and how on earth would the guys who actually wrote the book know what on earth a behemoth was, if dinosaurs all died millions of years before they (whoever it was that wrote Job) were born? And, if dinosaurs
"The amount of C-12 doesn't change over time, so that can be used as your yardstick for the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."
So, another question, how do you know how much C-14 you started off with? From my understanding it would work something like this: at year x (which is however many years ago) sample contains y amount of C-14 since we know the rate at which C-14 decomposes (or whatever the correct term is for radioactive material' half-life), we can then extrapolate the date x from the amount now in the sample today. But, how do we know what y was?
Slashdot Mirror
>>I can appreciate the beauty of a snowbank in -40 degrees celsius weather.
>Why the distinction?
What I mean is, despite the fact that it causes me physical *dis*comfort to stand there and look at it (it's *cold*), I can still appreciate it.
>That's utter drivel. My cat knows the difference between being cold and wet and miserable and scared and being cuddled up before the fire in a pair of loving arms.
On the other hand, I can appreciate the beauty of a snowbank in -40 degrees celsius weather. The cat could not possibly care any less, and would far rather be inside.
>My cat will signal her appreciation in a completely unequivocal manner by purring and loving up. Her level of appreciation is different, but it is not lacking.
True, but, I think it is quite significant that the cat is happy in a purely physical way. I can be happy when I am warm, well fed, and not thirsty. But I can also be happy even if I'm colder than I'd like, hungrier than I'd like, and thirstier than I'd like.
>Humans are simply animals. We're smarter, certainly, but there is zero evidence that we are different in any other way that makes any difference at all.
Which is why we're here discussing this on the internet, and not sniffing each other's butts and picking lice out of our hair. Because we're not any different from the rest of the animals, who also have worldwide computer networks and use them to talk to animals on the other side of the world whom they have never perceived in any way besides the imagination and cognitave communication (i.e. no physical senses, you have to use your brain to communicate since reading and writing are required).
Do animals have imagination?
Do animals have an appreciation for anything which doesn't physically affect them (make them feel good)?
I think there's ample evidence of humans being far superior to animals. You're just not looking at it.
Yeah, the other half has short dark brown hair and is clean shaven :D
>Ecological change is usually on the order of hundreds of thousands of years.
Dr Rex: "But, you see, kids, we dinosaurs don't have anything to worry about since ecological change takes plenty of time.. we'll have a chance to adapt. I mean, fast ecological change is totally unrealistic.. you'd require a comet hitting the earth or something."
Little velociraptor in the back of the class: "Umm, sir, what's that large flaming ball descending from the sky at this very moment?"
Personally I doubt all change is slow and gradual.
Whether or not the change is our fault, well.. that's certainly important. I believe God gave us the world and said "take care of it" and so if we're wrecking it then we're failing in what we were told to do. But the only question is whether or not it's because of man that global warming is happening... and from various things I've read, I personally think it's being way overly pessimistic to think man's responsible for all the global warming.
p.s. I disbelieve in evolution, just so you know.
p.p.s. And for further information that some people may not already have, disbelieving in evolution is not the same as disbelieving in science.
>As I noted in another comment, this seems to be connected to the cafe gaming
>environment, which maybe makes the enjoyment more intense (or whatever, I don't really
>know). If it is that way, then we can just ask(/regulate) the shopkeepers to pay some
>attention to what their customers are doing.
Then again, I think the exact same thing is true of a bar. Why is it that all these people can go to the bar, and get drunk (with the bar's staff being quite happy to continue shelling out more drinks as long as the cash keeps coming in), and then once the customer is completely drunk, they walk out to their car, and on the way home they run into and kill someone.. and none of the blame goes to the bartender..?
I'm not saying it's all the bartender's fault - on the contrary, it's the drunk's fault for getting drunk. But if anybody (read: the bartender) cared about either the drunk or the person he killed, they either wouldn't have let the guy get totally drunk in the first place, or at the very least would have tried to make sure the guy took a taxi home or something.
It seems to me it would be a little like a gun store owner seeing two guys get into a fight out in front of his store, and then one guy ducks out of the fight to come into the store and buy a gun... and the owner sells it to him. Sure, it's true that the guy who then proceeds to leave the store and shoot the other guy he was fighting with is the one responsible for the death. But the gun store owner knew what he was going to do with it, so shouldn't that count as being accomplice to murder or something?
I don't have a problem with beer, or guns, or video games.. if you use them properly. And people only start dying from them when you *don't* use them properly.
>Get him playing sport instead. He'll be healthier, he'll concentrate better at his schoolwork, he'll develop more social skills.
That's err... totally debatable. How is it healthier if you keep getting a broken bone every couple of days, and end up having to retire at thirty because you've got so many aches and pains?
>If he wants to play computer games then fine, if he wants to buy games with his own money then let him, but don't indoctrinate him into it.
Quite. But, same goes for football.. I think there's been plenty of people already who made thei kids play football or soccer or baseball or wrestling or whatever, when the kid never wanted to.
Besides.. it's not like you can't play computer *and* play some kind of sports - even if you're only playing the sport in order to exercise. Which is probably better for you than playing it professionaly anyway.
>What we need is some form of mandatory training on personal responsibility in the modern world. But hey, that's just my opinion.
:)
Yeah, it's supposed to be called "parents"
IMHO putting a kid into an environment where s/he is surrounded by other kids of the same age for what is it, 8 hours a day or so (I didn't attend public school so I don't even know), has got to be one of the dumbest things I've heard of.
First off, kids are kind of dumb. I know what I'm talking about; I was one, not that long ago. Second, kids in a group are even dumber than kids by themselves (I doubt anyone except possibly a kid who's currently in denial will argue with me there). And it gets worse the less supervision you have, especially supervision by someone *in authority*, which teachers aren't really since there's not much they can do if the kid does something 'bad'. Assuming, of course, that the teacher even notices.
So, instead of actually spending the time to tell the kid what's right and wrong, you're throwing them in together with a bunch of other kids who also don't know anything, and basically letting them figure it out for themselves.
Honestly, if someone suggested that we should teach math by collecting a group of people (kids) who *don't* know it, and putting them all in a room together for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, and letting them figure it out for themselves, how could anyone be surprised if it took them forever to figure out calculus? (Or if they never did, which might be less surprising)
So why be surprised when it takes them forever to figure out responsibility for themselves?
I'm not saying that 'all the evil in the world troday is a result of parents abdicating their responsibility to teach their kids'.. but I do think that even if you *are* trying, their spending most of their time each day with other kids their age without hearing a word about adult responsibility or morals has got to be undermining whatever you're trying to teach them.
I mean.. unless you're *trying* to teach them how to backstab their friends in order to steal boyfriends/girlfriends or later husbands/wives, how to ensure that relationships never last more than a few months, how to snub the unpopular people, and how to suck up to the popular people.
Yeah, but what *I'd* like to know is, how do you classify a schizophrenic whose personalities are both extroverts, but always spend their time talking to each other?
Now, children, for a lesson in logic.
(1) "And, everyone's a creep."
Here Thing states that everyone is a creep. From this we can deduce that Thing is a creep.
Thus my statement:
(2) Thing is a creep.
Next Thing states:
(3) "I no longer have relationships because I don't need creeps."
Herein we see what appears to be a very sensible statement. Ah, but there is a problem, because the next statement Thing makes is:
(4) "I like the idea of soul mates; mine is myself."
Now, from 1 and 2 we see that Thing is a creep, and from 3 we see that Thing does not wish to have a relationship with a creep, but in 4 Thing states that his (note: the term "his" is used because it's shorter than "his/her", not because I actually have any idea of Thing's gender) soulmate is himself, which of course means that either 3 or 4 is false.
Children, have no fear, for the loss of Thing from the pool of available singles isn't really such a bad thing after all.. since he's an illogical creep
(Umm, sorry, my post didn't actually have a point, I just thought it was kind of funny
>In fact, I prefer to see introversion as the positive difference of the clingy extrovert who can't stand being alone...
Aaactually.. I think it's probably something more like this, on a scale of 1 to 4:
1: Introvert who doesn't ever talk to anybody.
2: Introvert who has some friends, albeit not to many, who talks to people, but not too frequently, and enjoys being alone, although he also doesn't mind spending time with people he knows.
3: Extrovert who has quite a few friends, but not too many really close ones, who talks to people quite frequently and enjoys it, but also doesn't mind spending time alone.
4: Extrovert who doesn't ever *not* talk to someone.
I think both 1 and 4 are unbalanced cases, where the person isn't just exhibiting their personality.. it's more like they have a problem, and reverting to which behaviour is the easiest, is less work than fixing the problem. The two in the middle, on the other hand, are how you'll behave - depending on whether you're introverted or extroverted - when you're actually making an effort.
You're introverted? - okay, that's fine, but it won't kill you (in fact you may even find you actually enjoy it, as long as you don't go overboard) to get to know some people.
You're extroverted? - okay, that's fine, but it won't kill you (in fact it will probably help, as long as you don't spend *too* much time at it) to spend time alone thinking now and then.
Anyway, that's just my own two bits on the matter.. and in case anyone's wondering, yeah, I suspect that I am introverted, and I also suspect (although this comes from 'tickle' and the mensa self-test, neither of which I'd be willing to bet money on if it came right down to it, simply because they are both a case of self-test) that I'm a fair bit above average intelligence.
But, personally, I don't think intelligence is the only important trait (*OR* the most important) to have. I think it's just one part of the whole, which is *also* why I think that introversion and extroversion are simply parts of each person - some lean more to one or the other, but we all *have* both sides.
And I think we all *need* both sides.
Chaucer couldn't spell either, but he's famous. Still.
The purpose of language is to communicate, so if the reader knows what you're talking about a spelling mistake or ten doesn't really matter...
"So why do you answer a question with a question? By doing so you dodge the question of why not prove something before believing in it. Because if you do it backwards you will end up believing whatever you cultural heritage suggests."
;) ), and work from there; maybe if you discover that your original faith didn't work (as I maintain evolution doesn't, and as you maintain the bible doesn't) *then* come up with a different idea to replace it. You can't always wait until you've proven something right before you start using it.
:)
No. I'm just asking the very same question you are, except with evolution as the focal point istead of the bible. Why do most people today who believe in evolution believe in it? For the same reason most people seem to believe in their religion; because someone else told them, not ebcause they decided it for themselves. I'm just saying that it doesn't matter whether you start with the bible or start with evolution, you have to start *somewhere*, and work from there.
You CANNOT prove every single thing you believe. After all, we *could* all just be inside a computer right now, like in the Matrix. How would we tell the difference..?
So, at SOME point, you have to have some faith - even if you're a scientist (read: skeptic
"As far as your question goes - Ues starting by questioning evolution or old earth assumptiong is recommended."
Sure, but all I'm saying is tht you are doing the *exact same thing I am*: someone taught you about evolution and so you started from that. Someone taught m about creation and so I started from that. We're both (hopefully) openminded enough to listen to the other guy, and to do our best to try to decide for ourselves whether or not our starting position was the right one. I maintain that mine was, and you maintain that yours was, so it's sort of a stalemate.
"For example, any physical geologic separation of life forms such as a continent, island or mountain range are attendent with variations of life forms and formation of related species. Look at Madagascar, Australia, Gelapagos islands, or Sierra Nevada [pnas.org] mountains. Predicted and actually required by evolution but not predicted or even suggested by creationism."
I don't believe that Noah had one of every single species of animal on his boat. Therefore, many of the subspecies of animals must have come from the animals on the boat. Wolves and Great Danes are related. If you left Great Danes long enough, would Wolves eventually develop? I don't know a whole lot about genetics, but I suspect so.
So does that mean that if you left Great Danes long enough, turnips would develop? Err.. that's just a tiny little slight leap of faith, friend. And dogs turning into turnips has not been proven in the labratory; only great danes turning into wolves has.
"Doctor Hovind has not made _any_ contributions to science or geology. He has no formation training in science."
Looking out the window is training in science.
That was my point.
Darwin was not a scientist by training, but you don't ridicule him for it.
In fact, if I remember correctly, most of Darwin's training was in religion.
Secondly, even those who criticize Hovind's doctorate do *NOT* claim he hasn't got one; they just say it's not relevant, because err.. guess what.. it's a doctorate in religious education.
Something seems odd there, if you ask me.
If Dr Hovind *is* lyin about his education, or purposely using it to make himself sound better, or whatever, then I agree, I should certainly look critically at his theories. But I am *already* looking critically at his theories, and would be even if I thought he had a PhD for every branch of science there is.
I'm simply saying it's a better idea to judge a man by whether what he says and does makes sense, not by whether he has a cool letter or two tacked on before or after his name. That goes for evolutionists and creationists - and I don't believe everything the creationists say is right, either
>Seems to me the more honest approach would be to start questioning and believe in the Bible when you could prove it right?
:)
Or why not do the same with evolution? It's still a theory, even its defenders don't actually claim it has been proven. So why not disbelieve it all the way until it is proven, instead of believing it until it's diproven?
It all depends where you start from; I am starting from the Bible instead of from evolution.
>First Hovind is not a Geologist and second he is not a Doctor.
Yes, I have heard some people say he's not a doctor, but that doesn't matter much to me anyway - if he knows what he's talking about I don't care if he has a Dr in front of his name, and if he *doesn't* know what he's talking about I don't care if he has a Dr in front of his name.
And, personally, I think he's contributed plenty enough to the field of science that he ought to be a Doctor even if he isn't.
I don't implicitly trust Dr Hovind, but some of his theories make sense to me, so I am sticking with them until I find something better
>The interesting aspect about unconformities [is they] require a serial string of geologic events each taking long periods of time such as...
Umm.. here's another theory. What if, since obviously those rocks are sedimentary rock which means they formed from mud, what if the unconformities happened *while the mud was soft* (or at least, not entirely turned to rock) instead of after it turned to rock? If it happened that way, it wouldn't have to be slow. Plus it would work better because rock doesn't like to be bent after it's hard.
Again, I haven't read a lot of actual science studies on geology; all I read is the news and of course basic science textbooks, both which are more in the habit of teaching what Mr. X thinks that Y evidence indicates, rather than actually stating the evidence in question; all I'm saying is, if you *start off* by thinking that evolution happened, then you *have* to think the earth is old, and so every time you see anything around you, you'll be (possibly even subconsciously) thinking 'look, layers! that must have taken a long time since the earth is old'. Whereas if you're a creationist, the earth only *has* to be 10,000 years old or so, which means you'll look at it and go 'look, layers! The earth is fairly young so that must have happened quickly'.
Your basic philosophy changes the way you look at the world in *everything*, not just in one thing. I'm not throwing out all of science. I'm just saying a lot of the interpretations people take from the raw data are wrong (or maybe I should say "skewed").
Have you read Flatland? That book by A. Square, about the 2 dimensional place? If you think the world is flat, imagining falling off the edge is easy. If you think the world is round, imagining falling off the edge is.. hard.
I disagree with the basic assumptions.
"posting about creation on slashdot, and getting rabid replies. Way to go!"
;) ;)
Hey, is it my fault all these fundamentalist Evolutionists are rabid maniancs?
>Well, there are literally hundreds of thousands of very educated scientists who, for hundreds of years, have put their entire lives into the study of these things.
:)
:) The tough part comes when you try to look at the sun without your sunglasses.
;) ;)
And George Washington's doctors were highly educated and motivated. And they wanted to save hish life. And they killed him, by bleeding him to death.
I do not disagree that they are highly intelligent, trained, and motivated. I just disagree with some of their conclusions. Being smart does not necessarily make you right.
Besides, if you wake up and smell the coffee, you'll realize there are also plenty of scientists around who disagree with many different parts of the evolution theory
Not to mention, if you pay attention *at all* you will realize that creationists trying to get into geology or biology or anything that has even the slightest bit to do with evolution run into *major* opposition in universities today. i.e. it's pretty hard to find a well educated guy who doesn't believe in evolution.. but it's not (or at the very leats, not just) because evolution is right, it's because getting through school and remaining a creationist is.. difficult.
>In fact all living things share a tremendous amount of genetic material. What this indicates, very strongly, is that there was a time when our ancestors and those of other living things converged to the same creatures.
It can just as easily indicate that it was the same God who created them all and he saw no reason to make them totally different. How useful would fish be if we couldn't even eat them, because of biological differences, anyway?
It might also be intersting to note the search for a "helpmeet" that occurred in Genesis. Adam was supposed to find someone to be his helper. He looked through all the animals, but none suited him.. if the animals had been *completely* different from him in every way possible, I should think he wouldn't have even bothered looking.
Your perception depends on your eyes. And which shade of rose-coloured sunglasses you choose to wear.. Evolutionist, or Christian, or whatever else
>The emergence of that animal in the womb actually mirrors the evolution of the animal being created, much like god is reminiscing on the way that animal evolved every time a new one is conceived.
Err.. what? Oh no, are you talking about that dumb thing where the fetus supposedly looks like a fish, amphibian, reptile, and then mammal (usful acronym: memorize FARM and you got it)?
That idea was mostly based on a guy in the late 1800s who actually purposely doctored images of fetuses in the womb in order to make them look more like fish.. Those are not gill pouches, dude, they're cheeks...
It's also interesting to ntoe that the FARM idea helps to dehumanize fetuses in many people's minds (here I pause for the collective groans of abortionists). Yes, I am also pro-life. I actually like to call it pro-choice, as in pro the baby's choice to live, myself, just to confuse everybody
>God does not send a sperm that looks just like the dad (with head, feet, belly-button and all) into the womb to grow into a new man. He throws a seed and let's the seed bloom. Why would he do anything differently with a planet than he does with his most loved creaturess?
Because he said he did.
And my theory is that until you prove he *didn't*, I'm sticking with that.. which btw seems to be the same idea that evolutionists have; until I prove evolution wrong they'll stick with it. So in this case I see no difference between us except the starting point; I'm willing to guess you probably grew up learning evoltuion, whereas I grew up learning creation. Now we are adults (or at least I am, and judging from the intelligence of your post I assume you are too) and we have to come to our own conclusions.
I hope I can say I am a scientist, a seeker of kowledge; the way my mind works is that I t
"How many volumes of the Bible are there, anyway?"
:)
Umm.. I was talking about science fiction books.
The Bible is not science fiction.
Disagree with me if you please, but that is my position
>Your fundamental question comes down to whether or not to place your faith in science or in the Bible.
:)
:) ) the currently most popular theory of origin in acedemic circles. That doesn't mean I despise science.
:)
:p
Evolution is not the only part of science. I did not say I refuse all of science. Evolution is only one theory. I happen to think it's wrong, and stupid to boot. That doesn't mean I don't believe in science.
>It's clear that you're letting your ignorance of the natural world strengthen your belief in the Bible (the sun shrinking as it ages?).
How can the sun not shrink as it ages? So far as I know, the way it works is for matter to be converted to energy somehow. Now, that may be incorrect, and maybe there's another explanation; but as I said, that is not the only reason I have for doubting the "4.5 billion years" age model.
>There's nothing terrible about a little ignorance -- no one knows everything! Recognize, though, that most of your questions have been properly answered already -- you just haven't found them.
On the othe hand, maybe I have, and it's you who haven't
Questioning has to be done on both sides. Please don't patronize me.
>You should understand that the scientific method enables the evolution of ideas. People come up with crazy theories about how things work, and those theories are tested and retested many, many times under different circumstances, by different people in different times.
I understand the scientific method.
>Those theories that stand up to all of this scrutiny don't necessarily represent the "right" answers, but they are certainly our most accurate understanding of the world.
Of course. I am merely questioning (very blatantly and defiantly
>The Bible is completely separate from all of this. There's no testable ideas, and nothing in the way of useful scientific knowledge or theories.
If the creation week is not testable, then neither is evolution...
The rain of fire which is talked about as one of the plagues that was brought down on the egyptians, we would now assume to be meteorites. It is interesting to note that at the time of the KJV translation, many scoffers ridiculed the bible for this "rain of fire", claiming that since nothing like it had been observed in nature at the time, it was therefore poppycock. Now, however, we know that meteorites are possible.. and so now, of course, the skeptics claim that it was "just a plain old meteor shower" and had nothing to do with God..
Ah, so if it's impossible, that proves it isn't true, and if it *is* possible, that proves it isn't true? hmmm...
>You're doing yourself a great disservice in ignoring the thousands of years of scientific work done by our ancestors to bring you the world that we have today.
I'm not ignoring thousands of years of scientific work. At the most I am ignoring hundreds - the theory of evolution is very new. Please, if you don't get anything else I am saying, get this: I am disputing EVOLUTION. Not all of science in general. Evolution is *one* theory, which just so happens to have pervaded many other areas of science, because it is such a broad and important theory.
If you look at the world in other ways, namely creation science, it changes a lot of things, most especially in geology. But many of these things can be explained as well by creation science as by evolution - it just turns out looking very different depending how you look at it.
That doesn't mean I dispute physics, or mathematics, or a whole lot of biology, or plenty of geology (some depends on evolution, some doesn't), or computer science for that matter
Hopefully you get my point: I like science, I love science, I just don't think that the theory of evolution is correct.
"The only question I would pose to you at this point is this: Tell me exactly where in the Bible it states how long Adam and Eve lived before the fall. Sure geneologies after the fall may calculate to 6000 rough years, but what about inside the Garden?"
Gen 5:3 "and Adam lived 130 years..." and Gen 5:4-5 "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years; and he begat sons and daughters; and all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died."
I am assuming here that when it says "930 years" it means 930 years from the time he was created. I suppose you might be able to argue that it means 930 years from the time he was kicked out of the garden, which could mean the world is however much older, but it seems much more likely that it dates from when he was created.
Interesting to note, this means Adam could have been in the garden for anywhere up to a maximum of 110 years or so before he was kicked out, if you assume that cain and able were born after they left the garden, that they were close in age, and that they were around twenty when they died, and that Seth was born right away after that. That whole part of it is a bit iffy - I personally don't think it's extremely important how long Adam and Eve were in the garden, but it's interesting to note that it could have been quite a few years.
"The allegories, metaphors and guidelines in sacred books can be extremely profound and insightful, but ultimately one should use his own judgement in the face of possibly contradictory evidence. Think for yourself!"
:)
:) ). Or the president. Or whoever.
Indeed: I only say the same to any who are raised in the public school system and learn evolution the same way many people learn religion
Don't just accept what the professor says because he knows more than you. *Just* because he knows more than you doesn't make him right. Or the Pastor. Or the Pope (who, by the way, I positively denounce as being the head of the church, since I am a protestant and that's the point of being a protestant
Sure, it's *easier* to let someone else think for me... but, thanks very much, I'd rather see a car drive safely down the road first before I trust myself to it, and by the same token I'd rather know the basics of how carbon dating woks before I trust it, either. Because I have heard almost as much about the problems with carbon dating, myself, as I have about what makes it work properly, so until I know how it works for myself, I'm going to stick with the theory that works best under my current knowledge; which is young earth.
Furthermore, and while this is not the only reason (as I have already mentioned) it's also not something I am willing to throw off instantly whenever another idea comes up, I *have* had prayers of mine answered in entirely unexpected and unlikely ways. Faith may be the f-word to some people, but despite how much I resent *needing* to rely on someone else sometimes, I also understand that it is necessary.
But here's my theory; alway be willing to re-evaluate things. Never hesitate to ask a question because you're afraid of what the answer might tell you. And that goes for everybody, atheists and christians and buddhists and everybody. If you let other people do all your thinking for you, what are you but a machine?
"Anyways, I may not agree with your views or opinions, but I must say I have the highest respect for the fact that you are willing to question them. All too often I see people with religious believes cover their ears and start going "lalalala! I can't hear you!" when their beliefs are challenged, so kudos for actually inviting a challenge :) "
... the bat.--Dt.14:11, 18" So what? Who says bats are not birds? Umm.. today's scientists. There is no reason for the definition of a bird not to be "anything with wings" if we wanted it to be, it's a case of definition, not of the bat being incorrectly classified)... of course this is just a cursory glance.
:)
:)
Indeed. Unfortunately, I find it's quite the same no matter what religion you're talking about, and in fact, pretty well the same when you're talking about atheists and/or evolutionists; most would rather just not listen than to bother thinking about it.
Anyway, thanks for the links and I will definitely take a look at them.
As for the skeptics thingie umm well.. there may be some interesting things in there, but like you said, most of them are just plain silly (for instance, "Of all clean birds ye shall eat. But these are they of which ye shall not eat:
Also interesting to note the promise that God made to Abram about his seed being numbered like the stars.. many people (christians included) seem to think that was supposed to mean there would be as many Israelites as the stars. That could easily be a figurative number, not a literal number; but, I don't think that's what it was. *I* think God used signs in the stars to show Abram the story of the gospel, i.e. he explained to him about his *seed* ("as in one seed, not many seeds" like it explains in Galatians 3 I think it was), Jesus Christ. Not seed as in Israel would be as great in numbers as the stars, but rather his seed as in Jesus Christ (which it says in Galatians, so I'm not just pulling this theory out of my hat) would be explained in the stars.Also, right after th bit about the seed and the stars, it says "Abram believed and it was counted unto him for righteousness" - it also says in the new testament "there is ONE name by which men shall be saved, the Lord Jesus Christ"; Abram's believing God in that his descendants would be great in number would not be counted to him for righteousness. If God was talking about Jesus when he said that, however, then Abram's believing Him would be counted for righteousness (which it was). If you don't believe me read Galatians, because that's what Paul says about the passage there
Anyway, just an example of how some of those skeptic things are based on theology which isn't necessarily right, i.e., I agree with their points but they don't do anything to disprove the bible, just certain incorrect doctrines that some people claim come from the bible
Prelude note whih I actually am writing now just after finishing the rest of this:
:D
;)
Umm.. well, anyway, I hope I'm not rambling here, it's sort of late and I probably shouldn't be writing at this hour.. I need to get myself a designated writer to send me to bed when I'm too sleep-deprived to safely write
"Not at all. I was, instead, saying that it could just as easily have been created 300 years ago. There is considerable physical evidence (geologic, fossil, radiocarbon, etc..) that shows that the earth is billions of years old. If it were created in such a way that we couldn't tell the difference, it would be just as easy to create it 300 years ago to look that way as it would be to create it 6000 years ago to look that way. Hell, it could have been created 2 days ago and our own memories are as much a synthesis as the surroundings around us. That was my point. If you believe in creationism, you must accept these possibilities as equally likely to any arbitrary starting point."
Ah, okay, I see what you're saying.. you're thinking that I mean all that "considerable evidence" was purposely created to make us think that the earth is billions of years old, when it's actually 6000?
That's not what I am saying. What I am saying is much more offensive to evolutionists than that
And, hopefully, a little bit more logical.
I am saying that all that supposed evidence that the world is billions of years old is nothing of the sort, and that it is an either intentional or unintentional result of the assumptions people make when they start off doing things. Like carbon dating, for instance. I don't know enough about it to be absolutely certain one way or the other, mind. But from what I do know, I suspect that it wouldn't be hard for scientists to argue that things are millions of years old if they want to; and at the same time, I think it is possible for them to argue that things are only six thousand years old. *Science* is about *observable* facts; the fact that we are here simply means we were created. How exactly it was done is much harder to distinguish, and if you really *want* to believe it, you can look at that very same evidence and see it in two (more, actually) entirely different ways that things could come about.
For instance, we have fossils which we discover under dirt and which we date as being certain ages. How are these thingsdated? No, not always by carbon dating. It seems that they are frequently dated based on what layer of rock they are found in. Umm, okay. So how do you tell how old the layer of rock is? Well, see, this particular layer of rock usually has this particular kind of fossil in it...
That sounds like circular reasoning to me. If it isn't, please explain.
Furthermore, Evolution does not offer any actual method for the original creation of life, except that it spontaneously arose out of rock soup. I had heard that the spontaneous generation of life was a theory that went out in the 13th century or so (like, before the flat-earth theory), but I guess not.
"Evolution is a provable science today. DNA analysis can show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, different specialized adaptations in members of the same animal species that inhabit different parts of the globe. Farmers can selectively breed features in and out of both animals and plants. And the list goes on. Regardless of whether you believe in intelligent design, it is absolutely clear that the mechanics of natural selection do exist and are in operation today. Period. It can not be argued."
That's micro evolution.
I believe in micro evolution.
What I don't believe is *macro* evolution, which says that everything came from a turnip.
I don't see how it can be possible for turnips to turn into dogs, or dogs to turn into people, and that *hasn't* been proven in a lab. There are plenty of problems with macro evolution.
micro != macro.
Sure, you can keep adding billions worth of years in order to make those ludicrously low chances seem less
Oh.. and.. two other things; one, sorry if the last post was a little long :p but, I had a few things to say.
:)
And two, just so you know, the fact that I don't believe aliens are even a remote possibility doesn't mean I am uninterested in space travel or science fiction, much to the detriment of my free time, which of course usually gets split between computer games and reading. I just finished David Drake's 'With the Lightnings', John Ringo's 'Through the Looking Glass', and John Ringo + Tom umm... Kratman?'s 'Watch on the Rhine', and that was just the last couple of weeks worth of reading
Incidentally, if you haven't heard of John Ringo (what?! get out there and read his books! for the most part, they rock, although personally I would prefer a lot less immorality i.. sleeping around), he alo has some interesting things to say about Global Warming.. I believe he has a rant up about it on his website.
Umm.. on second thought, after looking for it again, I don't see it there.. well, it *Was* there.. and it's an interesting read if you can find it. This is the website, I dunno if it's still there or not and don't have time to look around for it myself at the moment, sorry:
http://johnringo.com/Unpublished/
(there's a number of other interesting articles there too, and although I don't agree with everything he says, I certainly appreciate the amount of thought he puts into his writing.)
> I sincerely hope I didn't hurt your feelings,
:) ) that I will never be so closed-minded as to question my own beliefs, and someone else doing so is even less surprising. I like that one quote from Neverwinter Nights (when you talk to Aribeth at the beginning of the second part of the main storyline) which went something like: "It is never wrong to question; what matters is your answers."
... HOW could YOU of all people ever believe in such fairytales?
:p Real life - and Mercedes Lackey's "Take a Thief" beckon). But basically, from what I have seen and read, I see no good indication that proves the earth is as *old* as the evolutionists say - and personally, I have started from the assumption that the Bible is correct until someone proves it wrong. Some could argue that that's a stupid starting position, but I can also argue that starting from the position that it's wrong until proven right is equally stupid - and besides, in anything provable, the bible has so far been correct (by all means, point it out to me if you think that's not true - as I said, I hope that I will never hesitate to ask questions because I am afraid of the answers).
Certainly not - I hope (and, in fact, pray
Now, hopefully I can at least give you something to think about...
>It's really not my habit to disagree abrasively with anyone BUT:
Because, from my understanding of geology (which I freely admit isn't the best in the world), it is possible that the world is a whole lot younger than evolutionists say it is.
And on the flip side, I can see some good arguments as to why it's *not* as old as they say - I would actually like to get into some good discussions with a geologist sometime to find out how well these arguments stand up.
For one thing, if the world is 4 billion years old let's say (I don't remember for sure what the mainstream theory of evolution says, but if I remember correctly it's somewhere around that), then obviously the sun is at least as old. The sun happens to burn fuel at a ridiculous rate, which isn't surprising since it's basically a ball of fire. Now, if the sun is burning, that means it's getting smaller, which means it used to be bigger (obviously), so *FOUR* billion years ago (which is a really fricking long time) it's bound to have been big enough to cause problems for the solar system, isn't it? An interesting question.
Now, that (or other similar questions) doesn't necessarily prove the earth is young (I don't have the time to argue the point at the moment, unfortunately
>There's nothing wrong with having religious beliefs, but it is important, in this day and age, to
>draw the line between mythology (which can be beautiful and moving, and has its place in every
>religion, but it is just that) and reality.
Do you believe in aliens?
I don't.
They don't make a lot of sense if you believe in a creator who wrote the bible - he'd have mentioned them, I think. It's *possible*, I suppose, that he made aliens too. But I doubt it.
Do you believe in fire breathing dragons?
I do.
Have you heard of Dinosaurs? That's a new name, and I think they used to be called dragons.
And breathing fire? Well, why not? There are bugs that can breathe fire (bombadier beetles).
And since I don't believe that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, that's not a problem for me. Besides, the bible talks about dinosaurs - "Behemoth" is a creature it mentions, who is a very large land animal. Ah hah, an Elephant! Err, no. it says Behemoth has a tail like a cedar tree, in the bible (Elephants do not have tails like cedar trees. More like a cedar twig...). Can you think of any large land animal besides a dinosaur, which has a tail like a cedar tree? Rhinocerous? Hippopotamus(sp)? I can't - and how on earth would the guys who actually wrote the book know what on earth a behemoth was, if dinosaurs all died millions of years before they (whoever it was that wrote Job) were born?
And, if dinosaurs
"The amount of C-12 doesn't change over time, so that can be used as your yardstick for the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."
So, another question, how do you know how much C-14 you started off with?
From my understanding it would work something like this:
at year x (which is however many years ago) sample contains y amount of C-14
since we know the rate at which C-14 decomposes (or whatever the correct term is for radioactive material' half-life), we can then extrapolate the date x from the amount now in the sample today. But, how do we know what y was?
Yeah, I mean, the fish do, and I don't hear the ecologists muttering about them polluting the oceans :)