NationStates Jolt Archive

And so we were studying rocks in Science this year...(aka doing Geology,).

Anyhow we were watching a video on this source of fun known as rocks and it was describing how we know where places used to be geologically (the example used in this video was that apart of the island I live on (South Island of NZ) in the last billion years or so slipped up the fault line from the complete bottom of the island to the complete top by matching rocks from both areas) and a person I know, (a Christian) scoffed at this, I was a little dubious as well, anyhow another friend of mine I know who is also a Christian seemed to have a big problem with Earth Sciences...

Is there any actual religious basis in this or am I just a paranoid?

young-earthers believe the earth is 6k years old.

Is there any actual religious basis in this or am I just a paranoid?A literal interpretatioon of the bible might lead one to conclude the earth isn't more than 6 thousand years old, so they'll scoff at the suggestion it's billions of years old.

If you read the Bible in the original language, you will see that it doesnt say "years" but "Units". The problem is that no one knows how long time these units are, however som christians that only have a little knowledge to the bible have a tendency to be offended when people suggest that the earth (or anything else) is more than 6-10.000 years old...

All Power to the LARS

Isn't there a bit in the bible that suggests that pi is exactly 3, something about a perfectly circular altar being 3 somethings around and two somethings across?

Anyway, my point is the bible is not a science book.

EDIT: Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.htm) sayeth:
"I think that it is the mathematicians that are being irrational, and it is time for them to admit it," said Lawson. "The Bible very clearly says in I Kings 7:23 that the alter font of Solomon's Temple was ten cubits across and thirty cubits in diameter, and that it was round in compass."

Yeah, 1 Kings 7:23.

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Here is a typical example of the method by which supporters of intelligent design calculate the age of the earth (and the universe)

http://www.independencebaptist.org/6,000%20Year%20Old%20Earth/6,000_year_old_earth.htm

and if you don't want to click the link here's the pertinent text:


There are five (and only five) Biblical steps necessary to determine the age of the universe. For a graphical representative of the following explanation click here.

1. Genesis 5. These genealogies cover 10 generations, from Adam to Noah, and reveals that Noah died when the earth was 2006 years old. Click here to view a table created from Genesis 5.

2. Gen. 11:10-32. These genealogies cover 9 generations, from Shem (the son of Noah) to the death of Terah (Abraham’s dad). This genealogy will give you the age of the earth at the death of Terah, who is the father of Abraham, as 2081. It is very interesting to note that Terah died the very year Abraham received the promise of God in Genesis 12:1-4. It is very true that we will not receive any of the promises of God until we obey the conditions of those promises. God had told Abraham to depart from: (1) his country, (2) his kindred, and (3) his father’s house. Abraham did not receive any of the promises of God until he obeyed completely. We, like Abraham, will receive none of the promises of God until we obey completely. Click here to view a table created from Genesis 11:10-32.

It is interesting to note that Abraham was born the same year Noah died, when the world was 2006 years old. According to Genesis 12:4, Abraham was 75 years old when he received the promises of God. Add 2006 to 75 and we discover the world was 2081 years old when the promise was given to Abraham concerning the coming Saviour and the blessings of God upon the nation of Israel.

3. Galatians 3:16,17 declares, "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." Abraham received the promise when the world was 2081 years old. Now, add the 430 years spoken of in Galatians 3:16,17 to 2081, and we discover the world was 2511 years old when the law (the Ten Commandments) was given.

Also read Exodus 12:40,41. "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. 41 And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt."

The sojourning of the children of Israel (in Canaan: during the lifetime of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: in Egypt (see Exodus 6:16-20) during the life of Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Moses.

4. I Kings 6:1. This verse will bring us up to the fourth year of Solomon's reign.

I Kings 6:1 states, "And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD."

Now we can add another 480 years to 2511 and we get find it is 2991 years from creation to the fourth year of Solomon’s reign.

5. Using any secular history, look up the date when Solomon reigned. This will be in the area of 1015-975 b. c. If you like, you can go through the books of I and II Kings and prove that Israel went into bondage to the Assyrians in 722 B. C. and Judah went into bondage to Babylon in 606 B. C.

Because we know from secular history that Solomon reigned about 1,000 years before Christ, we can add 1,000 years to 2,991 (the age of the earth when Solomon began to reign) and you get 3991 (the approximate age of the earth when Christ was born.)

I think everybody knows it is approximately 2000 years the time of Christ until now. So add 2000 years to 3991 and you get 5991. That is pretty close to 6,000 years.

It is very clear, is it not, that the Bible proves the age of the universe to be approximately 6,000 years old.



Just for those of you interested in "how it works".

And so we were studying rocks in Science this year...(aka doing Geology,).

Anyhow we were watching a video on this source of fun known as rocks and it was describing how we know where places used to be geologically (the example used in this video was that apart of the island I live on (South Island of NZ) in the last billion years or so slipped up the fault line from the complete bottom of the island to the complete top by matching rocks from both areas) and a person I know, (a Christian) scoffed at this, I was a little dubious as well, anyhow another friend of mine I know who is also a Christian seemed to have a big problem with Earth Sciences...

Is there any actual religious basis in this or am I just a paranoid?

Creationists have a problem with geology, most sane Christians don't.

EDIT: By Creationists I mean Young Earthers, sorry for any confusion.

"It is very clear, is it not, that the Bible proves the age of the universe to be approximately 6,000 years old."

:p

Isn't there a bit in the bible that suggests that pi is exactly 3, something about a perfectly circular altar being 3 somethings around and two somethings across?

Anyway, my point is the bible is not a science book.

EDIT: Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.htm) sayeth:
"I think that it is the mathematicians that are being irrational, and it is time for them to admit it," said Lawson. "The Bible very clearly says in I Kings 7:23 that the alter font of Solomon's Temple was ten cubits across and thirty cubits in diameter, and that it was round in compass."

I sense a large number of plane crashes in the near future.

I sense a large number of plane crashes in the near future.

Apart from the fact that it's not true, nobody is trying to redefine pi(well nobody that anyone is listening to).

Yeah the cubit was a very precise measurement as I recall :rolleyes:

Anyway geology, archeology all the ology's are answered with one simple fact we have a prankster god as Bill Hicks rationally determined.

Apart from the fact that it's not true, nobody is trying to redefine pi(well nobody that anyone is listening to).

I know that it isn't true.... yet..... it's only a matter of time.

I know that it isn't true.... yet..... it's only a matter of time.

Nah, not till they get rid of evolution.

Apart from the fact that it's not true, nobody is trying to redefine pi(well nobody that anyone is listening to).

Actually it was very nearly redefined in Indiana not that long ago; I had to research it for my maths class.

Bloody Stupid Johnson built a wheel with pi=3 and it fucked with reality.

Apart from the fact that it's not true, nobody is trying to redefine pi(well nobody that anyone is listening to).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
Although it was 100 years ago.

I think a wheel from a quantum reality where pi=3 would likely fit in our universe just about. It would be curved in our spacetime to maintain its ratio and might cause dizzyness if watched for a while, but wheels have been known to do that anyway. What would really screw with our reality though would be a wheel with pi greater than ours, say a value of 4, as it would still be curved but curved inwards on spacetime. My head hurts even trying to visualise such an object.

Depends on the geometry you use, and whether or not it's on a flat plane.

Thats exactly what I mean :)

for us PI approximating 3.1415827 gives us a circle on a flat plane

for the ratio to be 3 and appear in our reality the resulting object would have to be a section from the surface of a sphere (curved surface)

but what happens if you have a ratio of center to edge vs circumference which is greater than 3.141 AND have the edge form a circle in our reality?

Thats exactly what I mean :)

for us PI approximating 3.1415827 gives us a circle on a flat plane

for the ratio to be 3 and appear in our reality the resulting object would have to be a section from the surface of a sphere (curved surface)

but what happens if you have a ratio of center to edge vs circumference which is greater than 3.141 AND have the edge form a circle in our reality?

But what kind of sphere would you have if pi was 3?

But what kind of sphere would you have if pi was 3? that would be even wierder than the circle. It too would have to be curved but not in a way that we can comprehend I think. IF it could exist in our reality at all.

Creationists have a problem with geology, most sane Christians don't.

I am a creationist, I don't have any problem with geology:confused:

I am a creationist, I don't have any problem with geology:confused:

I think he means young earth creationists.

I think he means young earth creationists.

oh, them

I am a creationist, I don't have any problem with geology:confused:

I think he means young earth creationists.

Sorry about the ambiguity, I'll edit.

I am a creationist, I don't have any problem with geology:confused:

Neither do I. Nor any problem with the Big Bang, quantum physics, etc.

Neither do I. Nor any problem with the Big Bang, quantum physics, etc.

exactly.

I get so annoyed with the Christians who think it's their business to explain to God exactly what He did and how based on what they think happened when they weren't even around to observe it.

:rolleyes:

Yeah the cubit was a very precise measurement as I recall :rolleyes:

Anyway geology, archeology all the ology's are answered with one simple fact we have a prankster god as Bill Hicks rationally determined.

All Hail Loki! :D

exactly.

I get so annoyed with the Christians who think it's their business to explain to God exactly what He did and how based on what they think happened when they weren't even around to observe it.

:rolleyes:

I'm annoyed because it's hardly relevant. If I want to hear Bible study or a sermon, I want to hear something about how to live your life, or how to deal with a personal problem, etc.

What happened billions of years ago is not relevant to my personal life.

exactly.

I get so annoyed with the Christians who think it's their business to explain to God exactly what He did and how based on what they think happened when they weren't even around to observe it.

:rolleyes:

I'm annoyed because it's hardly relevant. If I want to hear Bible study or a sermon, I want to hear something about how to live your life, or how to deal with a personal problem, etc.

What happened billions of years ago is not relevant to my personal life.

As a lightly humourous anecdote, i went into an Amish furniture store the other day and noted that they were also selling a line of fireplaces ... Tulikivi or something like that ... and the advertisement on the fireplace in the Amish store makes specific note that the stones used in their devices are a couple million years old.
Sweet. :)

Here is a typical example of the method by which supporters of intelligent design calculate the age of the earth (and the universe)



What you have done is to calculate the age of the earth, using a book descriping things like a giant flod, which no scientist can find the proof of, a book desriping the first to humans and the first to children. One of the children go out into the world to find a wife. The bible is full of errors, and the calculation of the EARTH age can therefore not be calculated from the Bible, since the bible is a bad source.
Even if we said that the bible was right, then it is not the age of the universe, only the age of the earth.

The carbon -14 test can also be used as a big argument if you want to discuss the age of the earth. I know that there is some test that has come up with results that is not possible, but to completely discard the method because of that, it merely an act of closing the ones eyes to the truth. I know that many christians discard the carbon-14 test bacause of the anomalies. I believe it is because they cant argue against it. But please give it a try

What you have done is to calculate the age of the earth, using a book descriping things like a giant flod, which no scientist can find the proof of, a book desriping the first to humans and the first to children. One of the children go out into the world to find a wife. The bible is full of errors, and the calculation of the EARTH age can therefore not be calculated from the Bible, since the bible is a bad source.
Even if we said that the bible was right, then it is not the age of the universe, only the age of the earth.

The carbon -14 test can also be used as a big argument if you want to discuss the age of the earth. I know that there is some test that has come up with results that is not possible, but to completely discard the method because of that, it merely an act of closing the ones eyes to the truth. I know that many christians discard the carbon-14 test bacause of the anomalies. I believe it is because they cant argue against it. But please give it a try

It may be presumptuous to claim the age of the earth based on Biblical geneologies. But it is just as presumptuous to claim to know the age of the earth based on a set of 'scientific' assumptions. Boil them down and you might find that the so-called scientific assertions are not so scientific, but hang on a world view that cannot be divorced from the issue of God's existence.

I'm annoyed because it's hardly relevant. If I want to hear Bible study or a sermon, I want to hear something about how to live your life, or how to deal with a personal problem, etc.

What happened billions of years ago is not relevant to my personal life.

Actually, it sort of is, really.

When it comes to an eternal God, a billion years is not that much time, and thus what God did a billion years ago may as well be as relevant as what he did yesterday, or an hour ago, compared to eternity.

Otherwise, one could argue that what God did approximately two thousand years ago is also fading in relevance, with time, but would contradict Christian beliefs.

Yeah the cubit was a very precise measurement as I recall :rolleyes:

Anyway geology, archeology all the ology's are answered with one simple fact we have a prankster god as Bill Hicks rationally determined.

"I imagine getting to the Pearly Gates and having St. Peter ask me 'did you believe in dinosaurs?' and I'd say 'yeah, there were fossils everywh-' SHOOM! Aaaaaah! BOUND for the Lake of Fire. I'd be screaming 'but it was so plausible, aaaaaaaaaahhh!' St. Peter lookin' down after me sayin' 'You moron, that was one of God's greatest jokes! Giant flyin' lizards -- YOU MORON!'"

OR

"Jesus and his apostles were walking on the road when suddenly, a huge brontosaurus blocked their way, with a thorn in his paw. And they were sore afraid:

'My God, what huge fuckin' lizard! I'm sure gonna write about this in MY book,' said Matthew.

'I'm sure gonna write about this in MY book,' said Peter.

'I'm not sure what I saw,' said Thomas.

Matthew smacked Thomas on the head, saying 'what are you, stupid? It's a giant fuckin' lizard!'

But lo, Jesus was unafraid. He went up to the brontosaurus and pulled the thorn from its paw, and they became friends. Jesus then sent the brontosaurus to live in a loch in Scotland lo these many years in order to lure fat American tourists to come spend money there. And lo the Scots were pleased."

I'm with Bill on this one. I'm not about to take geological advice from a book that FORGOT to mention dinosaurs.

What you have done is to calculate the age of the earth, using a book descriping things like a giant flod, which no scientist can find the proof of, a book desriping the first to humans and the first to children. One of the children go out into the world to find a wife. The bible is full of errors, and the calculation of the EARTH age can therefore not be calculated from the Bible, since the bible is a bad source.
Even if we said that the bible was right, then it is not the age of the universe, only the age of the earth.

The carbon -14 test can also be used as a big argument if you want to discuss the age of the earth. I know that there is some test that has come up with results that is not possible, but to completely discard the method because of that, it merely an act of closing the ones eyes to the truth. I know that many christians discard the carbon-14 test bacause of the anomalies. I believe it is because they cant argue against it. But please give it a try

no I havent, someone else did. I was presenting it as an example of how fundies calculate the age of the world. I certainly dont believe that rubbish. Just to be clear though Carbon 14 is useless for dating anything over 60,000 years old with todays tests, but that does out factor the 6000 year old world by 10.

exactly.

I get so annoyed with the Christians who think it's their business to explain to God exactly what He did and how based on what they think happened when they weren't even around to observe it.

:rolleyes:

Anyone who thinks they can speak for God is arrogant beyond belief. If there is a God, I doubt She even gives a fuck about the imaginary pictures of Her drawn by tiny insignificant beings living on a ball of cosmic dust in one of an infinite number of quantum universes.

no I havent, someone else did. I was presenting it as an example of how fundies calculate the age of the world. I certainly dont believe that rubbish. Just to be clear though Carbon 14 is useless for dating anything over 60,000 years old with todays tests, but that does out factor the 6000 year old world by 10.

True. Uranium-235 on the other hand can date anything up to 4.5 billion years, and that's how we got that figure.

The universe is believed to be something between 13.7 and 15.2 billion years old (although that could be only six thousand years for God).

Also, it turns out the Christians were exaggerating when they attributed God's creation of the world to six days. In quantum physics, scientists have determined that everything really important had happened by the end of the first three minutes.

True. Uranium-235 on the other hand can date anything up to 4.5 billion years, and that's how we got that figure.

The universe is believed to be something between 13.7 and 15.2 billion years old (although that could be only six thousand years for God).

Also, it turns out the Christians were exaggerating when they attributed God's creation of the world to six days. In quantum physics, scientists have determined that everything really important had happened by the end of the first three minutes.

Cool, I didnt know about the uranium dating technique.

Not so sure on the age of the universe. I personally dont like the idea of "The Big Bang" and that one day it will all fade to black and be gone. Given that we can hear its echoes though I like to think that is was A big bang and that there have been others before it and others after it and that somwhere in the vast reaches of infinity it's happening right now just we wont get to hear those echoes for say some 100 billion years maybe

Anyone who thinks they can speak for God is arrogant beyond belief. If there is a God, I doubt She even gives a fuck about the imaginary pictures of Her drawn by tiny insignificant beings living on a ball of cosmic dust in one of an infinite number of quantum universes.

I think God is more interested in what its creation does rather than what it believes...

I think God is more interested in what its creation does rather than what it believes...

Well, there are 19 quantum constants that have to be kept at the same constant level for the creation to function... and the fabric of space-time has to be kept from tearing too severely... and God has to spend all that time rolling the universal dice... =.=

And so we were studying rocks in Science this year...(aka doing Geology,).

Anyhow we were watching a video on this source of fun known as rocks and it was describing how we know where places used to be geologically (the example used in this video was that apart of the island I live on (South Island of NZ) in the last billion years or so slipped up the fault line from the complete bottom of the island to the complete top by matching rocks from both areas) and a person I know, (a Christian) scoffed at this, I was a little dubious as well, anyhow another friend of mine I know who is also a Christian seemed to have a big problem with Earth Sciences...

Is there any actual religious basis in this or am I just a paranoid?
We had someone like that in our Earth History module. A die hard young earther, we never figured out why she was doing a geology degree...

We had someone like that in our Earth History module. A die hard young earther, we never figured out why she was doing a geology degree...

well, what's one more contradictory action for the insane?

A literal interpretatioon of the bible might lead one to conclude the earth isn't more than 6 thousand years old, so they'll scoff at the suggestion it's billions of years old.

Actually, my friend rechecked their calculations. To interpret the bible literally, the earth is 12 thousand years old, not 6.

Actually, my friend rechecked their calculations. To interpret the bible literally, the earth is 12 thousand years old, not 6.

based on what version?

based on what version?

I dunno. I'm gonna guess King James.

And so we were studying rocks in Science this year...(aka doing Geology,).

Anyhow we were watching a video on this source of fun known as rocks and it was describing how we know where places used to be geologically (the example used in this video was that apart of the island I live on (South Island of NZ) in the last billion years or so slipped up the fault line from the complete bottom of the island to the complete top by matching rocks from both areas) and a person I know, (a Christian) scoffed at this, I was a little dubious as well, anyhow another friend of mine I know who is also a Christian seemed to have a big problem with Earth Sciences...

Is there any actual religious basis in this or am I just a paranoid?

fundamental Christians are anti-science, they will scoff at anything that challenges the reality of the world as the bible sees it, to accept science is to cast doubt on the bible.....

fundamental Christians are anti-science, they will scoff at anything that challenges the reality of the world as the bible sees it, to accept science is to cast doubt on the bible.....

Heh, anti-logic would be a better word.

Cool, I didnt know about the uranium dating technique.

Not so sure on the age of the universe. I personally dont like the idea of "The Big Bang" and that one day it will all fade to black and be gone. Given that we can hear its echoes though I like to think that is was A big bang and that there have been others before it and others after it and that somwhere in the vast reaches of infinity it's happening right now just we wont get to hear those echoes for say some 100 billion years maybe

big bang trivia.....a good portion of that background noise(hiss) on your tv when you turn to a channel with snow(no pic) is left over from the big bang.....heard that from a physicist....

Here is a typical example of the method by which supporters of intelligent design calculate the age of the earth (and the universe)

http://www.independencebaptist.org/6,000%20Year%20Old%20Earth/6,000_year_old_earth.htm

and if you don't want to click the link here's the pertinent text:



Just for those of you interested in "how it works".

How is that ID?

Heh, anti-logic would be a better word.

I think for fundies it's a slippery slope....accept geological time lines, then you must accept evolution, and global warming and possible extinction, which they can't accept God would permit....

How is that ID?

That is their evidence for the earth being only 6000 years old which "proves" that evolution cannot have taken place as the scientists say and that dinosaurs never existed.

No, of course that doesn't represent the whole of ID Ideology but its a big part of how they support their belief.

A literal interpretatioon of the bible might lead one to conclude the earth isn't more than 6 thousand years old, so they'll scoff at the suggestion it's billions of years old.

Which is actually quite funny, because when you look at the exact wording of the original Genesis texts, it actually doesn't refer to the 24 hour period at all. To a translator who hasn't studied meanings of hebrew phrases, it would appear so, but in hebrew, the it is entirely different. Quite funny.

That is their evidence for the earth being only 6000 years old which "proves" that evolution cannot have taken place as the scientists say and that dinosaurs never existed.

No, of course that doesn't represent the whole of ID Ideology but its a big part of how they support their belief.

Of course, they forget the symbolism that "morning" and "evening" have in many ancient cultures, and the mere fact that the exact phrase used was not "The First Day", as in English texts, but a different phrase, "Day One", which may appear similar, but infact mean two totally different things. "The First Day" refers to 24 hours, whereas "Day One" simply is indefinate, not referring to any set period of time, just a given time-span.

Conclusion:

The "Morning" was the begginning of the "day"(Which in this case referrs to the first indefinate period), and "evening" refers to the end of the "day".

Heh. I love fundie literalists. Even when their holy book doesn't say something, they think it does.

Which is actually quite funny, because when you look at the exact wording of the original Genesis texts, it actually doesn't refer to the 24 hour period at all. To a translator who hasn't studied meanings of hebrew phrases, it would appear so, but in hebrew, the it is entirely different. Quite funny.

but since adam was created on day 6 (assuming the two contradictory creation myths are not in fact actually contradictory), and the bible does give us pretty good dates to when he was formed, then we can say that the bible explicitly claims that humans have existed for about 6,000 years. playing with the wording can't save genesis from silliness.

We had someone like that in our Earth History module. A die hard young earther, we never figured out why she was doing a geology degree...


One of the physics professors at my university is a born-again young earther. I'm still trying to figure out how he squares that.

big bang trivia.....a good portion of that background noise(hiss) on your tv when you turn to a channel with snow(no pic) is left over from the big bang.....heard that from a physicist....

I heard less than 1%, but a measurable amount none-the-less. (A good portion is a relative term of course)

Heh. I love fundie literalists. Even when their holy book doesn't say something, they think it does.

Yeah, hence all the nativity plays show Jesus being born in a stable. They say they live their lives by the Bible, and they haven't even read it! Wanton stupidity.

Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.htm) sayeth:
"I think that it is the mathematicians that are being irrational, and it is time for them to admit it," said Lawson. "The Bible very clearly says in I Kings 7:23 that the alter font of Solomon's Temple was ten cubits across and thirty cubits in diameter, and that it was round in compass."

To Lawson:

Who gives a shit?

Here is a typical example of the method by which supporters of intelligent design calculate the age of the earth (and the universe)

http://www.independencebaptist.org/6..._old_earth.htm

and if you don't want to click the link here's the pertinent text:

Hmm, why am I expecting some laugh-out-loud arithmetic errors? This has to be a joke, right?

It is very clear, is it not, that the Bible proves the age of the universe to be approximately 6,000 years old.

Ahaha:D

I, Lacadaemon, am actually all your lord and god. I am all powerful and beyond the laws of the universe. I created the universe - as you all know it - seven and half minutes ago. But because I need to test your faith for mysterious reasons - which are actually perfectly logical, but knowable only to me - I made it seem billions of years old and gave you all false memories. (Including those of other gods, even though I am the only one).

As none of you can prove this is untrue - because it is a supernatural theory and therefore beyond the 'axioms' of science - it must be true.

Anyone who does not believe in this, or does not hear this message, is doomed to burn in eternal torment. I have my reasons. And no, I won't explain them.

I, Lacadaemon, am actually all your lord and god. I am all powerful and beyond the laws of the universe. I created the universe - as you all know it - seven and half minutes ago. But because I need to test your faith for mysterious reasons - which are actually perfectly logical, but knowable only to me - I made it seem billions of years old and gave you all false memories. (Including those of other gods, even though I am the only one).

As none of you can prove this is untrue - because it is a supernatural theory and therefore beyond the 'axioms' of science - it must be true.

Anyone who does not believe in this, or does not hear this message, is doomed to burn in eternal torment. I have my reasons. And no, I won't explain them.

Right. Don't call us, we'll call you.

Next!

And so we were studying rocks in Science this year...(aka doing Geology,).

Anyhow we were watching a video on this source of fun known as rocks and it was describing how we know where places used to be geologically (the example used in this video was that apart of the island I live on (South Island of NZ) in the last billion years or so slipped up the fault line from the complete bottom of the island to the complete top by matching rocks from both areas) and a person I know, (a Christian) scoffed at this, I was a little dubious as well, anyhow another friend of mine I know who is also a Christian seemed to have a big problem with Earth Sciences...

Is there any actual religious basis in this or am I just a paranoid?

alot of christians have a mistrust of the sciences. this is not without reason, because there are alot of scientists that are atheistic and are using science to try and disprove the existence of God. Although I don't see how tectonic shifting would threaten anyone's belief in God, so I don't entirely understand your friends response to this information.

I sometimes think scientists make too many assumptions based on too little evidence, and I think that carbon dating isn't nearly as acurate as they think it is. After all, we have only being observing the properties of this particular carbon molecule for a few decades, how can we really be certain that it decays at a constant rate over hundreds and thousends of years? But I don't really have a problem with their beliefs, or the assumptions they make.

What I do have a problem with is how they teach things, in schools to impressionable children, that are based on assumption, as though they were proven facts, and never mention that these theories have never been conclusively proven. They tell people what they are supposed to think, rather than putting them in possesion of the facts and letting them draw their own conclusions. And it really bothers me that people will attack me, and consider me a fool, because I dare to draw different conclusions, from the available information, than those that were taught them by their teachers/professors.

I think that carbon dating isn't nearly as acurate as they think it is. After all, we have only being observing the properties of this particular carbon molecule for a few decades, how can we really be certain that it decays at a constant rate over hundreds and thousends of years?

because if the decay rates had been changing, then that would leave physical evidence that we don't see. we know what the universe would look like if the rates of radioactive decay were not constant (or nearly so - excluding a couple special circumstances), and the universe does not look like that.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html

alot of christians have a mistrust of the sciences. this is not without reason, because there are alot of scientists that are atheistic and are using science to try and disprove the existence of God. Although I don't see how tectonic shifting would threaten anyone's belief in God, so I don't entirely understand your friends response to this information.

I sometimes think scientists make too many assumptions based on too little evidence, and I think that carbon dating isn't nearly as acurate as they think it is. After all, we have only being observing the properties of this particular carbon molecule for a few decades, how can we really be certain that it decays at a constant rate over hundreds and thousends of years? But I don't really have a problem with their beliefs, or the assumptions they make.

What I do have a problem with is how they teach things, in schools to impressionable children, that are based on assumption, as though they were proven facts, and never mention that these theories have never been conclusively proven. They tell people what they are supposed to think, rather than putting them in possesion of the facts and letting them draw their own conclusions. And it really bothers me that people will attack me, and consider me a fool, because I dare to draw different conclusions, from the available information, than those that were taught them by their teachers/professors.

Yes, well, while some parts of earth science may be supported by only a few facts, Young Earth Creationism ... Creationism of any kind, really, Young, Old, ID, whatever, are supported by none.

And once more, the typical misuse of "theory." A theory is an explanation of the facts as we have them. Proof and disproof don't come into it. If we discover more facts, we change the theories. The Sun used to orbit the Earth, remember? That was the "theory" at the time. More facts, different theory.

Draw whatever conclusions you like from the facts, but please do not bring untestable creators or designers into science.

That is their evidence for the earth being only 6000 years old which "proves" that evolution cannot have taken place as the scientists say and that dinosaurs never existed.

No, of course that doesn't represent the whole of ID Ideology but its a big part of how they support their belief.

ID =/= biblical creationists, not always.

ID =/= biblical creationists, not always.

Indeed. ID is an insult for a true Biblical Creationist.

ID =/= biblical creationists, not always.

ID may not equal Young Earth Creationists but they are pretty much the same as Old Earthers. The difference is a thin veneer of science jargon, like "irreducible complexity." If you scratch an ID supporter, you'll find a Christian creationist underneath.

ID may not equal Young Earth Creationists but they are pretty much the same as Old Earthers. The difference is a thin veneer of science jargon, like "irreducible complexity." If you scratch an ID supporter, you'll find a Christian creationist underneath.

Only the famous ones, there are many agnostic or even some atheist IDists.

And ID has not always been a science either, the theory is actually centuries old.

And ID has not always been a science either, the theory is actually centuries old.

No, the IDEA that earth was designed by a or multiple superior beings is millenia old; though people usually believed more in coincidental creation of humanity (see the Egyptain and Roman creation stories for examples).

The bunch of deliberate deceptions and lies that is now known as ID is as much an insult to those ancient ideas as they are to religions.

God does not need people to lie for Him. Science and Religion have a common enemy in ID.

No, the IDEA that earth was designed by a or multiple superior beings is millenia old; though people usually believed more in coincidental creation of humanity (see the Egyptain and Roman creation stories for examples).

The bunch of deliberate deceptions and lies that is now known as ID is as much an insult to those ancient ideas as they are to religions.

God does not need people to lie for Him.

I guess you have only been subjected to ID through the extremely skewed and biased view of NSG then.

I guess you have only been subjected to ID through the extremely skewed and biased view of NSG then.

Oh no. I actually read Dembski, Behe and most of the stuff from the discovery institute. And I am in full agreement with the RC church about this: religion should not affiliate itself with such crap.

Oh no. I actually read Dembski, Behe and most of the stuff from the discovery institute. And I am in full agreement with the RC church about this.

Like I said, thats not all of ID at all, not in a longshot. ID theory as existed for centuries (and no I'm not talking about the idea that God created the world).

Ever heard of palies watch?

Edit: And why do you have such disdain, such anger for a theory?

Like I said, thats not all of ID at all, not in a longshot. ID theory as existed for centuries (and no I'm not talking about the idea that God created the world).

Ever heard of palies watch?

Paley's watch and its maker have been refuted by the discoveries of science since 1802, when it first appeared.

Ever heard of palies watch?

Yes. The flaws in that were pointed out about 200 years ago.

Edit: And why do you have such disdain, such anger for a theory?

I vehemently dislike people that deliberately lie to promote their agenda.

Like I said, thats not all of ID at all, not in a longshot. ID theory as existed for centuries (and no I'm not talking about the idea that God created the world).

Ever heard of palies watch?

Edit: And why do you have such disdain, such anger for a theory?

And here we go again. It's not a "theory" in any way, shape, or form. To argue that it is, especially since you've been shown multiple times that it isn't, and have even admitted it's not a scientific theory, is being a bit disingenuous.

Paley's watch and its maker have been refuted by the discoveries of science since 1802, when it first appeared.

How can a non scientific theory be refuted, it's not designed for proof. All anyone has ever been able to say about it ever is that it's not proof.

And here we go again. It's not a "theory" in any way, shape, or form. To argue that it is, especially since you've been shown multiple times that it isn't, and have even admitted it's not a scientific theory, is being a bit disingenuous.

It can still be a theory without it being a scientific one.

I vehemently dislike people that deliberately lie to promote their agenda.

There is no more lies in ID theory then there are in the majority of scientific theories. Except they are not lies, they are mistakes which soon get changed. However when it happens to ID everyone likes to call it lies.

It can still be a theory without it being a scientific one.

the value of a theory that doesn't conform to scientific norms is for all practical purposes useless.

the value of a theory that doesn't conform to scientific norms is for all practical purposes useless.

How do you decide what is useful and what is not?

There is no more lies in ID theory then there are in the majority of scientific theories. Except they are not lies, they are mistakes which soon get changed. However when it happens to ID everyone likes to call it lies.

Yet it isn't a "theory" at all. They are all a bunch of liars who have no backing for their beliefs at all. They (and you) are deliberately trying to confuse the terms to degrade the scientific method to allow creationism.

You know this. Quit lying to yourself and everyone on this board.

It can still be a theory without it being a scientific one.


Then it isn't a theory. It's a belief.

Yet it isn't a "theory" at all.

Theory is a subjective word, it doesn't matter what you call it so lets just drop it.


They are all a bunch of liars who have no backing for their beliefs at all. They (and you) are deliberately trying to confuse the terms to degrade the scientific method to allow creationism.


You can't blanket all IDists as a bunch of liars, ID comes in all shapes and forms. How are they trying to degrade the scientific method?

How can a non scientific theory be refuted, it's not designed for proof. All anyone has ever been able to say about it ever is that it's not proof.
I can say it the same way Eudamenea can say that evolution has never been proven. Better theories have come along and replaced Paley's theory of design.

It can still be a theory without it being a scientific one.
Then keep it out of science classes. if it's a theory of how the world began it belongs in comparative religions or sociology or mythology. Not in biology.

There is no more lies in ID theory then there are in the majority of scientific theories. Except they are not lies, they are mistakes which soon get changed. However when it happens to ID everyone likes to call it lies.

The lies are not in the "theory" itself but in the way its proponents try to use it to introduce creationism into science education. The modern ID movement is described by its main supporters, Philip Johnson, Behe, Dembski, as "the wedge." Dembski himself has said, “Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion" (in his book, Intelligent Design). And in a 1999 interview with a Christian magazine, Touchstone, "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."

If you're an agnostic or atheist supporter of ID, you've been had. You need to read what the leaders of this movement are really saying, and reconsider.

Theory is a subjective word, it doesn't matter what you call it so lets just drop it.

No, it's not "subjective" at all.



You can't blanket all IDists as a bunch of liars, ID comes in all shapes and forms. How are they trying to degrade the scientific method?

And round and round we go. Do we so easily forget the previous threads? Do you deny that the most prominent "IDists" admit to wanting to loosen standards to the point that phrenology and astrology would become legitimate sciences? That there are no disprovable tests that have ever been done to show any evidence for ID? That there is no evidence whatsoever except for "we can't/don't want to explain it so goddidit"?

I can say it the same way Eudamenea can say that evolution has never been proven. Better theories have come along and replaced Paley's theory of design.


Not nescicerilly(sp?), I believe in evolution as well. However I like the principles behind ID. It's hard to explain.


Then keep it out of science classes. if it's a theory of how the world began it belongs in comparative religions or sociology or mythology. Not in biology.


Just to be clear, I certainly am not trying or want it in a class room.


The lies are not in the "theory" itself but in the way its proponents try to use it to introduce creationism into science education. The modern ID movement is described by its main supporters, Philip Johnson, Behe, Dembski, as "the wedge." Dembski himself has said, “Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion" (in his book, Intelligent Design). And in a 1999 interview with a Christian magazine, Touchstone, "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."

If you're an agnostic or atheist supporter of ID, you've been had. You need to read what the leaders of this movement are really saying, and reconsider.

I'm not interested in those people much to be honest anyway.

And round and round we go. Do we so easily forget the previous threads? Do you deny that the most prominent "IDists" admit to wanting to loosen standards to the point that phrenology and astrology would become legitimate sciences? That there are no disprovable tests that have ever been done to show any evidence for ID? That there is no evidence whatsoever except for "we can't/don't want to explain it so goddidit"?

Firstly, thats only a small minority of IDists.

Secondly, I admit that ID is primarily an asumption, with no testible evidence. However that doesn't mean it's not convincing. There are lot of assumptions in a lot of theories, especially evolution, which is mostly an assumption but does have more evidence for it.

Not nescicerilly(sp?), I believe in evolution as well. However I like the principles behind ID. It's hard to explain.

Just to be clear, I certainly am not trying or want it in a class room.

I'm not interested in those people much to be honest anyway.

"It's hard to explain" is, to me, the underlying foundation of Intelligent Design. I'm not a professional scientist, but what the ID movement comes down to seems to be "we can't explain how such-and-such a biological structure came to be, therefore we have decided that it must have been designer by some intelligence operating outside nature." Don't you find that insulting? It strikes at the basis for every technological advance mankind has made. We're a curious race, and ID is telling us that there are questions that are too hard to answer, just hush up and stop asking them.

If you aren't a supporter of Demski and Johnson and Behe, you have to be careful about throwing ID around, at least on NSG, because people will assume you are. And they have defined the movement, you must admit.

EDIT:

Secondly, I admit that ID is primarily an asumption, with no testible evidence. However that doesn't mean it's not convincing. There are lot of assumptions in a lot of theories, especially evolution, which is mostly an assumption but does have more evidence for it.

You're working the wrong way around. Darwin didn't wake up one day and say, "Suppose we assume living things ... what's the word? ... evolved from simpler organisms. let's see if I can find evidence to support that." No, he gathered evidence on his round-the-world trip, looked at it, thought about it, and decided that the idea that living things came from simpler organisms fit the evidence better than that they had been created as-is (I'm sure I misstated that, but hey, humanities major here).

Firstly, thats only a small minority of IDists.

Secondly, I admit that ID is primarily an asumption, with no testible evidence. However that doesn't mean it's not convincing. There are lot of assumptions in a lot of theories, especially evolution, which is mostly an assumption but does have more evidence for it.

And here you go making things up again. But you're not trying to confuse the two, no, not at all.

because if the decay rates had been changing, then that would leave physical evidence that we don't see. we know what the universe would look like if the rates of radioactive decay were not constant (or nearly so - excluding a couple special circumstances), and the universe does not look like that.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html

What I am proposing is that we human being do not 'know' as much as we think we do. To cite the example that was used to refute some of my points, men used to think the earth was the center of the universe, and that all stellar bodies orbited around us. This was proven to be completely wrong, and I believe that much of what we think we know may yet be proven to be wrong. We should therefore keep our minds open to the possibility that some of the things we think we know about the earth, our existence upon it, and the universe that surounds it, may be wrong.

Men are very quick to assume that they are wise, especially when what they think they know justifies them in doing what they want to do. People believe what they want to believe and look for ways to prove what they would prefer to be true, as truth. Pride leads us to make many incorrect assumptions, and those assumptions blind us to the truth that we might otherwise see.

And here you go making things up again. But you're not trying to confuse the two, no, not at all.

Most people agree that evolution is an assumption, a good asumption with evidence, but still an asumption none the less.

Most people agree that evolution is an assumption, a good asumption with evidence, but still an asumption none the less.

You may have missed my post back a ways, but, no, evolution is not an assumption, it's a way of explaining the evidence. The "Theory of Evolution" didn't come first, the evidence did.

Most people agree that evolution is an assumption, a good asumption with evidence, but still an asumption none the less.

Naturally. Every scientific theory is an assumption.
Some assumptions however are better than others ;)

You may have missed my post back a ways, but, no, evolution is not an assumption, it's a way of explaining the evidence. The "Theory of Evolution" didn't come first, the evidence did.

It's a conclusion made from the evidence, but not a proof. Just like how you may conclude that something was designed, by looking how it's structure is too complex to occur naturally. Except from that has much less evidence then evolution.

It's a conclusion made from the evidence, but not a proof. Just like how you may conclude that something was designed, by looking how it's structure is too complex to occur naturally.

If I saw something in Nature that appeared too complex to occur naturally, that would make me think that here was a great subject for a doctoral dissertation, not that it was designed. Suppose ... I don't know, one of the great scientists of the last couple hundred years had decided the problem he was working on was too hard to solve, for instance, the structure of DNA was too complex to occur naturally? Or Pasteur decided that the causes of disease were too complex, they had to have been designed.

I'm sorry, ID is not a way of keeping your mind open to new discoveries. I think it's a way to get out of thinking about very difficult problems.

If I saw something in Nature that appeared too complex to occur naturally, that would make me think that here was a great subject for a doctoral dissertation, not that it was designed. Suppose ... I don't know, one of the great scientists of the last couple hundred years had decided the problem he was working on was too hard to solve, for instance, the structure of DNA was too complex to occur naturally? Or Pasteur decided that the causes of disease were too complex, they had to have been designed.

I'm sorry, ID is not a way of keeping your mind open to new discoveries. I think it's a way to get out of thinking about very difficult problems.

Except they think they have sovled it, they think that the idea of a designer will best fit their findings and best explain it.

Except they think they have sovled it, they think that the idea of a designer will best fit their findings and best explain it.

So what happens to the Designer when someone comes up with another solution? Where does the Designer go then?

So what happens to the Designer when someone comes up with another solution? Where does the Designer go then?

What do you mean?

What do you mean?

Name a scientific problem, a biological structure, for which the best explanation is that it was designed. Suppose then that someone proposes a new solution that shows how the structure evolved naturally, without supernatural intervention. What happens to the Designer? I'm assuming - perhaps I shouldn't - that the Designer is some sort of sentient being. We've now forced the Designer into the gaps in our knowledge of the universe, and his role gets smaller and smaller as time passes.

Name a scientific problem, a biological structure, for which the best explanation is that it was designed. Suppose then that someone proposes a new solution that shows how the structure evolved naturally, without supernatural intervention. What happens to the Designer? I'm assuming - perhaps I shouldn't - that the Designer is some sort of sentient being. We've now forced the Designer into the gaps in our knowledge of the universe, and his role gets smaller and smaller as time passes.

Well, if someone actually showed, and i mean literally showed something so complex occuring from nature and showing that it's not something that could only happen in one in a million chance then I guess the conclusion about the designer would be less convincing.

Well, if someone actually showed, and i mean literally showed something so complex occuring from nature and showing that it's not something that could only happen in one in a million chance then I guess the conclusion about the designer would be less convincing.

Okay then.

My whole point is that we don't know everything about everything, but we're working on it. We know much more now than we did 100 years ago or 200 years ago. Look at medicine. In 1802, had you asked a physician what caused disease, you'd have gotten talk about bad air and miasmas and an overabundance of bad blood, and had you actually been sick, the doctor might have started sharpening his scalpels to bleed you. Maybe. He'd certainly not wash his hands, or offered you anything to dull the pain, except maybe a tot of brandy.

Science is a beautiful endeavor, but like the US presidency, it's hard work. We should embrace the difficulty of science and not let go until we find out everything we can about everything, not resign things to a Designer about whom no one has anything to say except that he exists.

Okay then.

My whole point is that we don't know everything about everything, but we're working on it. We know much more now than we did 100 years ago or 200 years ago. Look at medicine. In 1802, had you asked a physician what caused disease, you'd have gotten talk about bad air and miasmas and an overabundance of bad blood, and had you actually been sick, the doctor might have started sharpening his scalpels to bleed you. Maybe. He'd certainly not wash his hands, or offered you anything to dull the pain, except maybe a tot of brandy.

Science is a beautiful endeavor, but like the US presidency, it's hard work. We should embrace the difficulty of science and not let go until we find out everything we can about everything, not resign things to a Designer about whom no one has anything to say except that he exists.

Don't worry i've heard this were working on it speach thousands of times before. I've even said it my self.

Don't worry i've heard this were working on it speach thousands of times before. I've even said it my self.

Okay, well, but it's true. I'm not trying to talk down to you. :)

We had someone like that in our Earth History module. A die hard young earther, we never figured out why she was doing a geology degree...

Simple solution to that, really: she gets a degree, which gives her authority, and then all the other little folk who already buy into the biggest plea to authority in the history of the world will listen to her when she makes silly claims that the world is, indeed, 6k years old.

Tada! ID be praised! *Retches*

Yes, well, while some parts of earth science may be supported by only a few facts, Young Earth Creationism ... Creationism of any kind, really, Young, Old, ID, whatever, are supported by none.

That is ony your opinion. We have the testimony of ancient and modern prophets. Also the beauty and perfection of creation, the perfect order in which the systems terrestrial and celestial move and interact, all these things testify to the existence of an intelligent force who has organised and set in order those systems. I believe that it is unreasonable to assume that these systems are the productions of chance, or some cosmic accident.

People believe what they choose to believe, and God allows them their liberty. If he left irrefuteable evidence of his existence, if he signed all of his works in an undenible way, would we have freedom to disbelieve in him? No, we would be compelled by the weight of evidence to believe in Him, we would have no freedom to disbelieve. I believe that the evidence that suggests the existence of God is just as strong and as prevelent as the evidence that suggests that there is none, and that people choose for themselves what they will believe.

Draw whatever conclusions you like from the facts, but please do not bring untestable creators or designers into science.

Human beings are not rational beings, but emotional beings. Our feelings, whether we are aware of them or not, have a far more powerful influence upon our minds than any logically argument could ever have. I believe that there are two basic emotions that motivate people to act, love and fear. If we are not being motivated by the one, we are being motivated by the other. And that, given the substance of the section of your post quoted above, begs the question: What about giving creationism equal weight (or even so much as a foot note) as a scientific theory makes you afraid? If you were as secure in your position as I am in mine you wouldn't feel the need to attack those that challenge your position, you would feel that the truth is self evident and would feel disposed to allow your enemies equal say, and would feel secure allowing people to choose for themselves whom they would believe.

If you feel that I am attacking you, I want you to know that I am not. I am defending my position, but I'm trying to do so in a way that doesn't attack you personally. I am also attacking the practice of trying to silence those that do not agree with ones own opinion, but no one ought to feel themselves personally attacked by what I have written, and if anyone does I appologise, for this was not my intention.

That is ony your opinion. We have the testimony of ancient and modern prophets. Also the beauty and perfection of creation, the perfect order in which the systems terrestrial and celestial move and interact, all these things testify to the existence of an intelligent force who has organised and set in order those systems. I believe that it is unreasonable to assume that these systems are the productions of chance, or some cosmic accident.

People believe what they choose to believe, and God allows them their liberty. If he left irrefuteable evidence of his existence, if he signed all of his works in an undenible way, would we have freedom to disbelieve in him? No, we would be compelled by the weight of evidence to believe in Him, we would have no freedom to disbelieve. I believe that the evidence that suggests the existence of God is just as strong and as prevelent as the evidence that suggests that there is none, and that people choose for themselves what they will believe.



Human beings are not rational beings, but emotional beings. Our feelings, whether we are aware of them or not, have a far more powerful influence upon our minds than any logically argument could ever have. I believe that there are two basic emotions that motivate people to act, love and fear. If we are not being motivated by the one, we are being motivated by the other. And that, given the substance of the section of your post quoted above, begs the question: What about giving creationism equal weight (or even so much as a foot note) as a scientific theory makes you afraid? If you were as secure in your position as I am in mine you wouldn't feel the need to attack those that challenge your position, you would feel that the truth is self evident and would feel disposed to allow your enemies equal say, and would feel secure allowing people to choose for themselves whom they would believe.

If you feel that I am attacking you, I want you to know that I am not. I am defending my position, but I'm trying to do so in a way that doesn't attack you personally. I am also attacking the practice of trying to silence those that do not agree with ones own opinion, but no one ought to feel themselves personally attacked by what I have written, and if anyone does I appologise, for this was not my intention.

Creationism is not a scientific theory. We've had innumerable threads where other posters more knowledgeable than I have laid out the whys and wherefores of scientific practice, how theories must be falsifiable and all that. I know you know wht I'm talking about because you've posted on those threads. Teach Creationism in Comparative Religion, Sociology, wherever it more properly belongs, but not in Science as having equal weight with Evolution, because it does not have equal weight with Evolution. I'm not trying to silence anyone with this. Please come up with proper scientific evidence of creation by God or an Intelligent Designer, evidence that can be verified and tested, and I'll allow what you want.

Creationism is not a scientific theory. We've had innumerable threads where other posters more knowledgeable than I have laid out the whys and wherefores of scientific practice, how theories must be falsifiable and all that. I know you know wht I'm talking about because you've posted on those threads. Teach Creationism in Comparative Religion, Sociology, wherever it more properly belongs, but not in Science as having equal weight with Evolution, because it does not have equal weight with Evolution. I'm not trying to silence anyone with this. Please come up with proper scientific evidence of creation by God or an Intelligent Designer, evidence that can be verified and tested, and I'll allow what you want.

I'm not suggesting that creationism be taught in schools, that is the responsibility of parents and religious leaders. I was talking about giving the idea equal consideration in your own personal considerations, and in the scientific community. Creationism is a theory, it is an explanation of the facts, it is merely one way of explaining the world we percive around us, and I feel it is a perfectly valid explanation.

I'm not suggesting that creationism be taught in schools, that is the responsibility of parents and religious leaders. I was talking about giving the idea equal consideration in your own personal considerations, and in the scientific community. Creationism is a theory, it is an explanation of the facts, it is merely one way of explaining the world we percive around us, and I feel it is a perfectly valid explanation.

It will be considered when it can present falsifiable evidence. Are you claiming god is falisfiable?

Creationism is NOT a theory. It is a belief. It will remain such until it can present evidence to support itself.

Edit: Would you accept that EVERY creationist belief then be given "equal weight" by the scientific community?

I'm not suggesting that creationism be taught in schools, that is the responsibility of parents and religious leaders. I was talking about giving the idea equal consideration in your own personal considerations, and in the scientific community. Creationism is a theory, it is an explanation of the facts, it is merely one way of explaining the world we percive around us, and I feel it is a perfectly valid explanation.

As I said, I don't personally feel that Creationism is a scientifically valid explanation of the universe we see around us and how it came to be. To say that the reason the world is as it is, is that "God made it that way" is not science, it's religion. I have no problem with Creationism as religion, in any guide you might care to present it. This is not closed-mindedness, this is a simple exercise in looking at the facts and deciding what makes more sense.

But what kind of sphere would you have if pi was 3?

PTerry Pratchett addressed this very question in "Going Postal." Appearantly, everything happens.

What I am proposing is that we human being do not 'know' as much as we think we do. To cite the example that was used to refute some of my points, men used to think the earth was the center of the universe, and that all stellar bodies orbited around us. This was proven to be completely wrong, and I believe that much of what we think we know may yet be proven to be wrong. We should therefore keep our minds open to the possibility that some of the things we think we know about the earth, our existence upon it, and the universe that surounds it, may be wrong.

Men are very quick to assume that they are wise, especially when what they think they know justifies them in doing what they want to do. People believe what they want to believe and look for ways to prove what they would prefer to be true, as truth. Pride leads us to make many incorrect assumptions, and those assumptions blind us to the truth that we might otherwise see.

Yes, but we thought we knew that the Earth was flat because we were still listening to Creationists who tried to argue from faith and fairy tales instead of reason.

Now we don't give equal weight to fairy tales when trying to come up with scientific theories.

It's a conclusion made from the evidence, but not a proof. Just like how you may conclude that something was designed, by looking how it's structure is too complex to occur naturally. Except from that has much less evidence then evolution.

But an assumption means that you never stop to ask if it's the case. If evolution was an assumption then it would have been the creationists who came along and asked, but maybe it didn't happen that way.

Creationism was the assumption. Evolution was the result of questioning the assumption.

What about giving creationism equal weight (or even so much as a foot note) as a scientific theory makes you afraid?

if we were to treat creationism as a scientific theory (in so far as we can), then it would be false. every single one of its testable predictions is flat out wrong. hilariously so in most cases. upon finding this out, creationists start engaging in magical handwaving, because they don't actually want it treated like a scientific theory, and subject to testing and logic and forced sense-making. it just doesn't stack up at all and makes them look like the ignorant jackasses they are.

Most people agree that evolution is an assumption
It's a conclusion made from the evidence


is that honestly what you think assumption means?

What I am proposing is that we human being do not 'know' as much as we think we do.

on what sort of grounds do you base this belief about radiometric dating's accuracy specifically?

Sorry to troll here, but it's basically applied statistics. The other 'belief' is the assumption the laws of nature did not change in the past.

Also check this maybe... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

Sorry to troll here, but it's basically applied statistics. The other 'belief' is the assumption the laws of nature did not change in the past.

Also check this maybe... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

It's more the YEC's and IDers that "assume" that the laws have changed to fit their psuedo-math.

Simple solution to that, really: she gets a degree, which gives her authority, and then all the other little folk who already buy into the biggest plea to authority in the history of the world will listen to her when she makes silly claims that the world is, indeed, 6k years old.

Tada! ID be praised! *Retches*

Nah, she was as thick as two short planks and switched to geography. Problem solved! :D