Making a Monkey Out of Darwin - Pat Buchanan

[sedele]

Making a Monkey Out of Darwin
by Patrick J. Buchanan
06/30/2009

"You have no notion of the intrigue that goes on in this blessed world of science," wrote Thomas Huxley. "Science is, I fear, no purer than any other region of human activity; though it should be."

As "Darwin's bulldog," Huxley would himself engage in intrigue, deceit and intellectual property theft to make his master's theory gospel truth in Great Britain.

He is quoted above for two reasons.

First is House passage of a "cap-and-trade" climate-change bill. Depending on which scientists you believe, the dire consequences of global warming are inconvenient truths -- or a fearmongering scheme to siphon off the wealth of individuals and empower bureaucrats.

The second is publication of "The End of Darwinism: And How a Flawed and Disastrous Theory Was Stolen and Sold," by Eugene G. Windchy, a splendid little book that begins with Huxley's lament.
That Darwinism has proven "disastrous theory" is indisputable.

"Karl Marx loved Darwinism," writes Windchy. "To him, survival of the fittest as the source of progress justified violence in bringing about social and political change, in other words, the revolution."

"Darwin suits my purpose," Marx wrote.

Darwin suited Adolf Hitler's purposes, too.

"Although born to a Catholic family Hitler become a hard-eyed Darwinist who saw life as a constant struggle between the strong and the weak. His Darwinism was so extreme that he thought it would have been better for the world if the Muslims had won the eighth century battle of Tours, which stopped the Arabs' advance into France. Had the Christians lost, (Hitler) reasoned, Germanic people would have acquired a more warlike creed and, because of their natural superiority, would have become the leaders of anIslamic empire."
Charles Darwin also suited the purpose of the eugenicists and Herbert Spencer, who preached a survival-of-the-fittest social Darwinism to robber baron industrialists exploiting 19th-century immigrants.

Historian Jacques Barzun believes Darwinism brought on World War I: "Since in every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party demanding armaments, an individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party demanding the conquest of power and a racialist party demanding internal purges against aliens -- all of them, when appeals to greed and glory failed, invoked Spencer and Darwin, which was to say science incarnate."
Yet a theory can produce evil -- and still be true.

And here Windchy does his best demolition work.

Darwin, he demonstrates, stole his theory from Alfred Wallace, who had sent him a "completed formal paper on evolution by natural selection."

"All my originality ... will be smashed," wailed Darwin when he got Wallace's manuscript.

Darwin also lied in "The Origin of Species" about believing in a Creator. By 1859, he was a confirmed agnostic and so admitted in his posthumous autobiography, which was censored by his family.

Darwin's examples of natural selection -- such as the giraffe acquiring its long neck to reach ever higher into the trees for the leaves upon which it fed to survive -- have been debunked. Giraffes eat grass and bushes. And if, as Darwin claimed, inches meant life or death, how did female giraffes, two or three feet shorter, survive?

Windchy goes on to relate such scientific hoaxes as "Nebraska Man" -- an anthropoid ape ancestor to man, whose tooth turned out to belong to a wild pig -- and Piltdown Man, the missing link between monkey and man.

Discovered in England in 1912, Piltdown Man was a sensation until exposed by a 1950s investigator as the skull of a Medieval Englishman attached to the jaw of an Asian ape whose teeth had been filed down to look human and whose bones had been stained to look old.

Yet three English scientists were knighted for Piltdown Man.

Other myths are demolished. Bird feathers do not come from the scales of reptiles. There are no gills in human embryos.

For 150 years, the fossil record has failed to validate Darwin.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontologists," admitted Stephen J. Gould in 1977. But that fossil record now contains even more species that appear fully developed, with no traceable ancestors.
Darwin ruled out such "miracles."

And Darwinists still have not explained the origin of life, nor have they been able to produce life from non-life.

The most delicious chapter is Windchy's exposure of the Scopes Monkey Trial and Hollywood's Bible-mocking movie "Inherit the Wind," starring Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow.

The trial was a hoked-up scam to garner publicity for Dayton, Tenn. Scopes never taught evolution and never took the stand. His students were tutored to commit perjury. And William Jennings Bryan held his own against the atheist Darrow in the transcript of the trial.

In 1981, Gould had this advice for beleaguered Darwinists:

"Perhaps we should all lie low and rally round the flag of strict Darwinism ... a kind of old-time religion on our part."

Exactly. Darwinism is not science. It is faith. Always was.

[Blueskies]

:facepalm

This article is horrible. Attacking evolution by linking it with Hitler and Marx is a joke. Should we attack Christianity because the Spanish Inquisitors were Christians?

The scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It has even been suggested that evolution has more evidence than germ theory.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Even if evolution is false, it doesn't make God true. Seriously, how hard is it to say we really don't know for sure?

[misterx]

Ugh. Usually Pat is spot on, but he really got it wrong on this one.

[American Idol]

:facepalm

This article is horrible. Attacking evolution by linking it with Hitler and Marx is a joke.

Not really. Social Darwinism is a major basis for Nazism and Marxism and was responsible for the worst genocides in human history...

[tonesforjonesbones]

Yes...just read the Protocols of the Learned Elders of zion...even if that is not true..or a hoax..there is a section of it devoted to Darwinism and Marx...and how it was a hoax to control religion and the population...more junk science like global warming..HOAX HOAX HOAX...tones

[tonesforjonesbones]

I love Pat Buchanan..as always...tones

[sparebulb]

Buchanan speaks the truth. Darwinism/climate change/etc are political philosophies rather than pure science. And these are used by people against people.

[Kraig]

Buchanan speaks the truth. Darwinism/climate change/etc are political philosophies rather than pure science. And these are used by people against people.

Not really, they become political philosophies when they are used by the government to sway the people. Just because the government is using climate change as a fear tactic to our disadvantage, doesn't mean good scientists should stop studying it altogether.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Yes I see NO difference in Darwin Propaganda and Al Gore Propaganda...none. Tones

[sparebulb]

Not really, they become political philosophies when they are used by the government to sway the people. Just because the government is using climate change as a fear tactic to our disadvantage, doesn't mean good scientists should stop studying it altogether.

So are you saying that it is a pure and uncorrupted science?

[Sola_Fide]

Making a Monkey Out of Darwin
by Patrick J. Buchanan
06/30/2009

"You have no notion of the intrigue that goes on in this blessed world of science," wrote Thomas Huxley. "Science is, I fear, no purer than any other region of human activity; though it should be."

As "Darwin's bulldog," Huxley would himself engage in intrigue, deceit and intellectual property theft to make his master's theory gospel truth in Great Britain.

He is quoted above for two reasons.

First is House passage of a "cap-and-trade" climate-change bill. Depending on which scientists you believe, the dire consequences of global warming are inconvenient truths -- or a fearmongering scheme to siphon off the wealth of individuals and empower bureaucrats.

The second is publication of "The End of Darwinism: And How a Flawed and Disastrous Theory Was Stolen and Sold," by Eugene G. Windchy, a splendid little book that begins with Huxley's lament.
That Darwinism has proven "disastrous theory" is indisputable.

"Karl Marx loved Darwinism," writes Windchy. "To him, survival of the fittest as the source of progress justified violence in bringing about social and political change, in other words, the revolution."

"Darwin suits my purpose," Marx wrote.

Darwin suited Adolf Hitler's purposes, too.

"Although born to a Catholic family Hitler become a hard-eyed Darwinist who saw life as a constant struggle between the strong and the weak. His Darwinism was so extreme that he thought it would have been better for the world if the Muslims had won the eighth century battle of Tours, which stopped the Arabs' advance into France. Had the Christians lost, (Hitler) reasoned, Germanic people would have acquired a more warlike creed and, because of their natural superiority, would have become the leaders of anIslamic empire."
Charles Darwin also suited the purpose of the eugenicists and Herbert Spencer, who preached a survival-of-the-fittest social Darwinism to robber baron industrialists exploiting 19th-century immigrants.

Historian Jacques Barzun believes Darwinism brought on World War I: "Since in every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party demanding armaments, an individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party demanding the conquest of power and a racialist party demanding internal purges against aliens -- all of them, when appeals to greed and glory failed, invoked Spencer and Darwin, which was to say science incarnate."
Yet a theory can produce evil -- and still be true.

And here Windchy does his best demolition work.

Darwin, he demonstrates, stole his theory from Alfred Wallace, who had sent him a "completed formal paper on evolution by natural selection."

"All my originality ... will be smashed," wailed Darwin when he got Wallace's manuscript.

Darwin also lied in "The Origin of Species" about believing in a Creator. By 1859, he was a confirmed agnostic and so admitted in his posthumous autobiography, which was censored by his family.

Darwin's examples of natural selection -- such as the giraffe acquiring its long neck to reach ever higher into the trees for the leaves upon which it fed to survive -- have been debunked. Giraffes eat grass and bushes. And if, as Darwin claimed, inches meant life or death, how did female giraffes, two or three feet shorter, survive?

Windchy goes on to relate such scientific hoaxes as "Nebraska Man" -- an anthropoid ape ancestor to man, whose tooth turned out to belong to a wild pig -- and Piltdown Man, the missing link between monkey and man.

Discovered in England in 1912, Piltdown Man was a sensation until exposed by a 1950s investigator as the skull of a Medieval Englishman attached to the jaw of an Asian ape whose teeth had been filed down to look human and whose bones had been stained to look old.

Yet three English scientists were knighted for Piltdown Man.

Other myths are demolished. Bird feathers do not come from the scales of reptiles. There are no gills in human embryos.

For 150 years, the fossil record has failed to validate Darwin.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontologists," admitted Stephen J. Gould in 1977. But that fossil record now contains even more species that appear fully developed, with no traceable ancestors.
Darwin ruled out such "miracles."

And Darwinists still have not explained the origin of life, nor have they been able to produce life from non-life.

The most delicious chapter is Windchy's exposure of the Scopes Monkey Trial and Hollywood's Bible-mocking movie "Inherit the Wind," starring Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow.

The trial was a hoked-up scam to garner publicity for Dayton, Tenn. Scopes never taught evolution and never took the stand. His students were tutored to commit perjury. And William Jennings Bryan held his own against the atheist Darrow in the transcript of the trial.

In 1981, Gould had this advice for beleaguered Darwinists:

"Perhaps we should all lie low and rally round the flag of strict Darwinism ... a kind of old-time religion on our part."

Exactly. Darwinism is not science. It is faith. Always was.

Pat is right on here. I'm really impressed.

[Brian4Liberty]

What this confirms without a doubt is that Zombie (threads) are real. :p

Whether AquaBuddha2010 is a necromancer is open for debate.

[Sola_Fide]

What this confirms without a doubt is that Zombie (threads) are real. :p

Whether AquaBuddha2010 is a necromancer is open for debate.



Sorry:)

I've been searching the forums for evolution topics and came across this one.

[KurtBoyer25L]

People of faith criticizing science as a faith strikes me as absurd.

[Sola_Fide]

People of faith criticizing science as a faith strikes me as absurd.

Why?

[tpreitzel]

People of faith criticizing science as a faith strikes me as absurd.

Actually, the situation is reversed. Scientists criticizing "people of faith" is absurd. Why? Hint: Every human has access to 5 senses ...

[libertybrewcity]

Darwinism does explain the origin of life, but it doesn't explain the origin of the universe. Let's get the facts straight.

[TheTyke]

Blind faith in the scientific establishment is no better than blind faith in government or religion. All of them can be used as tools to control people. Individuals should do their own research, logic it all out, and not just believe whatever they're fed. Pat's article is spot-on.

[TheViper]

I'm trying hard not to giggle at Pat but I'm finding it quite difficult.

All scientific concepts are reshaped and sculpted over time to extract a more pristine truth. Darwin's theories are to be taken as nothing more than ground work with which to further study upon. Saying that Darwin got a few specific evolution chains wrong or disassociated doesn't change the value or fact of the concept itself.

It's rather silly to see someone of such education frivolously associate Darwin's theories with dictators and to chop down a few trees to claim there is no forest. Shame on him.

[YumYum]

I'm trying hard not to giggle at Pat but I'm finding it quite difficult.

All scientific concepts are reshaped and sculpted over time to extract a more pristine truth. Darwin's theories are to be taken as nothing more than ground work with which to further study upon. Saying that Darwin got a few specific evolution chains wrong or disassociated doesn't change the value or fact of the concept itself.

It's rather silly to see someone of such education frivolously associate Darwin's theories with dictators and to chop down a few trees to claim there is no forest. Shame on him.

I think Pat believes in the Garden of Eden story. It conflicts with Darwin's theory.

[TheViper]

I think Pat believes in the Garden of Eden story. It conflicts with Darwin's theory.

Indeed. But one can believe X without making a fool of themselves trying to discredit Y.

[amy31416]

Once again, I'll say that I don't understand why more religious people don't study nature and physical phenomena. If you believe that God created the heavens and the Earth, it would seem that it's an obligation to study nature.

I've only met one seriously religious fellow who agreed with that, and he was quite brilliant, and doing a post-doc in biophysics at Johns Hopkins. If you have confidence in your religion and the existence of God, then it's obvious (to me, anyways) that nature is his handiwork and should be studied in order to try to understand him.

In addition, if you believe that science is some giant scheme meant only to manipulate the masses (similar to how atheists view religion), you should study and understand it in order to confirm, deny and/or fight against the corruption in it.

[libertybrewcity]

I don't know why the Church is always trying to bash/excommunicate/hang/discredit those who want to explore God's beautiful and complex creation.

[Sola_Fide]

Once again, I'll say that I don't understand why more religious people don't study nature and physical phenomena. If you believe that God created the heavens and the Earth, it would seem that it's an obligation to study nature.

I've only met one seriously religious fellow who agreed with that, and he was quite brilliant, and doing a post-doc in biophysics at Johns Hopkins. If you have confidence in your religion and the existence of God, then it's obvious (to me, anyways) that nature is his handiwork and should be studied in order to try to understand him.

In addition, if you believe that science is some giant scheme meant only to manipulate the masses (similar to how atheists view religion), you should study and understand it in order to confirm, deny and/or fight against the corruption in it.


???

Have you heard of Galileo? Have you heard of Newton? Do you know that the scientific revolution was started by Christians? Wait...you know that right?

[Sola_Fide]

I don't know why the Church is always trying to bash/excommunicate/hang/discredit those who want to explore God's beautiful and complex creation.

What church are you talking about bro?

[YumYum]

I don't know why the Church is always trying to bash/excommunicate/hang/discredit those who want to explore God's beautiful and complex creation.

I agree with you. Ignorance is not the best pathway to faith. I also wonder why God created things not so beautiful, like poison ivy, mosquitoes, poisonous snakes and spiders, and nasty thorns on my blackberry bushes (He wants us to eat the blackberries, but we have to get pricked in doing so).

[amy31416]

???

Have you heard of Galileo? Have you heard of Newton? Do you know that the scientific revolution was started by Christians? Wait...you know that right?

Not quite. Many scientists who laid the foundation for modern science were Christian, but there were also many Muslims and polytheists (going back to ancient Greece.) I also know that most current Christians are anti-science, including you--so far as I can tell.

Anyways, you're avoiding my point--studying nature is studying God's direct work, if you believe that God created the heavens and the Earth. No bullshit. No hype. No mistranslations. No charismatic characters. Just his creations.

So why the aversion to science? It should be embraced by religious people.

[TheViper]

There are many reasons some theists have an aversion to science.

1. Some see the scientific facts that contradict religious texts as a direct assault and threat to their religion.

2. Some see the absence of God in scientific theories themselves as as means of ignoring God.

3. Others feel threatened by the reduction in religious followers or worse, the reduction in tithes and collections.

4. Finally, some just flat out fear what they don't understand and would rather vanquish it than accept it.

[heavenlyboy34]

There are many reasons some theists have an aversion to science.

1. Some see the scientific facts that contradict religious texts as a direct assault and threat to their religion.

2. Some see the absence of God in scientific theories themselves as as means of ignoring God.

3. Others feel threatened by the reduction in religious followers or worse, the reduction in tithes and collections.

4. Finally, some just flat out fear what they don't understand and would rather vanquish it than accept it.
There are also those who recognize that science, by its nature, commits the fallacy of asserting the consequent. (If A, then B. B, therefore A.)

[TheViper]

There are also those who recognize that science, by its nature, commits the fallacy of asserting the consequent. (If A, then B. B, therefore A.)

Actually, that's incorrect. The scientific method prevents you from concluding A because of B. You have to have A first. Look up null hypothesis.

[Legend1104]

Once again, I'll say that I don't understand why more religious people don't study nature and physical phenomena. If you believe that God created the heavens and the Earth, it would seem that it's an obligation to study nature.

I've only met one seriously religious fellow who agreed with that, and he was quite brilliant, and doing a post-doc in biophysics at Johns Hopkins. If you have confidence in your religion and the existence of God, then it's obvious (to me, anyways) that nature is his handiwork and should be studied in order to try to understand him.

In addition, if you believe that science is some giant scheme meant only to manipulate the masses (similar to how atheists view religion), you should study and understand it in order to confirm, deny and/or fight against the corruption in it.

I don't usually talk about the evolution thing because I think it is a distraction. I believe that in many cases you lose the opportunity to lead people to Christ by wasting the conversation on evolution, but oh well I am just in a mood.

I personally disagree with macroevolution but am ok with microevolution. I don't think that disagreeing with one part of science means that you are anti-science. I certainly love science, but just have disagreements with some ideas put forth. I agree with you though that Christians should study science.

[White Bear Lake]

Eh, I believe in evolution but not social darwinism. The latter is nothing more than a statist twisting of science used to advance their agenda.

[amy31416]

There are also those who recognize that science, by its nature, commits the fallacy of asserting the consequent. (If A, then B. B, therefore A.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

It's really a fascinating read, and highlights one of my favorite scientists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham, next to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabir_ibn_Aflah and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci

[Sola_Fide]

Actually, that's incorrect. The scientific method prevents you from concluding A because of B. You have to have A first. Look up null hypothesis.

No. You ASSUME A. A is the assumption that creates the fallacy. Hypotheses are assumed beforehand.

The scientific method rests on this reasoning:

X is true, then Y is true. Y is true. Therefore, X is true. But this is a fallacy because it may be that A, B, or C causes Y to be true, not X.

HB is right. And it is really a shame that so many people watch a Richard Dawkins video on YouTube and think they are invincible lololol.

Logic always makes you face reality:). The scientific method is fallacious. Knowledge does not come through observations, it comes through revelation. Truth cannot be derived from observations, only axioms.

[Airborn]

Even if evolution is false, it doesn't make God true. Seriously, how hard is it to say we really don't know for sure?

Even if evolution is true, it doesn't make God false.

[TheViper]

No. You ASSUME A. A is the assumption that creates the fallacy. Hypotheses are assumed beforehand.

The scientific method rests on this reasoning:

X is true, then Y is true. Y is true. Therefore, X is true. But this is a fallacy because it may be that A, B, or C causes Y to be true, not X.

HB is right. And it is really a shame that so many people watch a Richard Dawkins video on YouTube and think they are invincible lololol.

Logic always makes you face reality:). The scientific method is fallacious. Knowledge does not come through observations, it comes through revelation. Truth cannot be derived from observations, only axioms.
You might have had something until this part I bolded. I take it this is a truth that was a revelation to you? Should we do away with crime scene technicians and replace them with priests?

[Verrater]

I really wish people wouldn't use the term "evolution" so loosely.
I hate the question: "Do you believe in evolution?"
That's like asking, "Do you believe in the sun?"

Evolution is an observable fact of nature.
Evolutionary theory can be debated, as a theory is an explanation of how a fact occurs, not whether or not a fact is a fact.
He should be saying anthropogenesis.

[amy31416]

No. You ASSUME A. A is the assumption that creates the fallacy. Hypotheses are assumed beforehand.

The scientific method rests on this reasoning:

X is true, then Y is true. Y is true. Therefore, X is true. But this is a fallacy because it may be that A, B, or C causes Y to be true, not X.

HB is right. And it is really a shame that so many people watch a Richard Dawkins video on YouTube and think they are invincible lololol.

Logic always makes you face reality:). The scientific method is fallacious. Knowledge does not come through observations, it comes through revelation. Truth cannot be derived from observations, only axioms.

It sounds as though you're anti-hypothesis (conjecture/thought/contemplation) and anti-knowledge gained through (god-given?) sensory perception.

[Slutter McGee]

Evolution is a fuckin fact. The only evil that comes from evolution is by those who think they can engineer it to an outcome of their own choosing.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[amy31416]

Evolution is a fuckin fact. The only evil that comes from evolution is by those who think they can engineer it to an outcome of their own choosing.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

There are no "facts" in science, only laws, theories and hypotheses.

[heavenlyboy34]

There are no "facts" in science, only laws, theories and hypotheses.
qft.

[heavenlyboy34]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

It's really a fascinating read, and highlights one of my favorite scientists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham, next to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabir_ibn_Aflah and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci
Thanks, snugglebunny. :) ;)

[Sola_Fide]

There are no "facts" in science, only laws, theories and hypotheses.

Well, you're right. Also, one can't derive a universal law from an individual observation. This is called the fallacy of induction. Universal statements of truth cannot be obtained through observation.

[heavenlyboy34]

You might have had something until this part I bolded. I take it this is a truth that was a revelation to you? Should we do away with crime scene technicians and replace them with priests?

Read here (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html) in detail about the fallacy of asserting the consequent. Then, you will understand that the scientific method is in fact fallacious by its nature. Can science come up with facts? Yes, but often times it doesn't.

[Verrater]

There are no "facts" in science, only laws, theories and hypotheses.

Are you making a philosophical argument or an evidentiary one?

[KurtBoyer25L]

Why?

A: Darwin was right about evolution. No God created the world. All religious explanations are a matter of shallow faith.

B: Darwin was wrong about evolution. God created the world. All scientific explanations are a matter of shallow faith.

A: But I have a mountain of evidence on my side. There is no concrete evidence that God exists.

B: But your evidence is illusory. There is a mountain of evidence that God exists.

A: But my position is the one that really does make sense.

B: But my position is the one that really does make sense.

A: You're blind. Everything you say is the opposite of the truth.

B: You're blind. Everything you say is the opposite of the truth.

A: You just think that because you're delusional.

B: You just think that because you're delusional.

A: Your side is insane and subversive.

B: Your side is insane and subversive.

A: My point of view is the opposite of yours.

B: My point of view is the opposite of yours.

C: Is it possible this is a false dilemma, and a combination of intelligent design & evolutionary processes created today's reality?

A & B: SHUT UP STUPID!

[PaulConventionWV]

Darwinism does explain the origin of life, but it doesn't explain the origin of the universe. Let's get the facts straight.

Uh, no, it doesn't explain either. Would you care to explain how life came from non-life in evolutionary terms?

[Sola_Fide]

A: Darwin was wrong about evolution. God created the world. All scientific explanations are a matter of shallow faith.

B: Darwin was right about evolution. No God created the world. All religious explanations are a matter of shallow faith.

A: But I have a mountain of evidence on my side. There is no concrete evidence that God exists.

B: But your evidence is illusory. There is a mountain of evidence that God exists.

A: But my position is the one that really does make sense.

B: But my position is the one that really does make sense.

A: You're blind. Everything you say is the opposite of the truth.

B: You're blind. Everything you say is the opposite of the truth.

A: You just think that because you're delusional.

B: You just think that because you're delusional.

A: Your side is insane and subversive.

B: Your side is insane and subversive.

A: My point of view is the opposite of yours.

B: My point of view is the opposite of yours.

C: Is it possible this is a false dilemma, and a combination of intelligent design & evolutionary processes created today's reality?

A & B: SHUT UP STUPID!


Well, I guess what you are offering is some kind of Hegelian dialectical synthesis along the lines of what Aquinas taught, and on that note I completely reject it.

There is no synthesis of God and nature, or faith and reason, in Biblical Christianity. Like Augustine said, "I have faith in order to understand". Faith comes before understanding. Faith interprets and directs my understanding. The Bible says that the Lord is the beginning of all knowledge.

[PaulConventionWV]

Once again, I'll say that I don't understand why more religious people don't study nature and physical phenomena. If you believe that God created the heavens and the Earth, it would seem that it's an obligation to study nature.

I've only met one seriously religious fellow who agreed with that, and he was quite brilliant, and doing a post-doc in biophysics at Johns Hopkins. If you have confidence in your religion and the existence of God, then it's obvious (to me, anyways) that nature is his handiwork and should be studied in order to try to understand him.

In addition, if you believe that science is some giant scheme meant only to manipulate the masses (similar to how atheists view religion), you should study and understand it in order to confirm, deny and/or fight against the corruption in it.

You are absolutely right, and there are many people like that. Unfortunately, though, many of them lose their grant money and are stifled in education. We didn't leave, we were forced out.

[PaulConventionWV]

What church are you talking about bro?

Probably the Catholic church.

[PaulConventionWV]

No. You ASSUME A. A is the assumption that creates the fallacy. Hypotheses are assumed beforehand.

The scientific method rests on this reasoning:

X is true, then Y is true. Y is true. Therefore, X is true. But this is a fallacy because it may be that A, B, or C causes Y to be true, not X.

HB is right. And it is really a shame that so many people watch a Richard Dawkins video on YouTube and think they are invincible lololol.

Logic always makes you face reality:). The scientific method is fallacious. Knowledge does not come through observations, it comes through revelation. Truth cannot be derived from observations, only axioms.

You are absolutely right when it comes to the assumtions of evolution. However, I wouldn't extend that to all of science. Or are you getting evolution and science confused? Evolution is the most anti-scientific theory ever.

[PaulConventionWV]

I really wish people wouldn't use the term "evolution" so loosely.
I hate the question: "Do you believe in evolution?"
That's like asking, "Do you believe in the sun?"

Evolution is an observable fact of nature.
Evolutionary theory can be debated, as a theory is an explanation of how a fact occurs, not whether or not a fact is a fact.
He should be saying anthropogenesis.

It depends on how you define evolution. If you are talking about speciation, or micro-evolution, then yes, it is an observable fact. However, trying to extrapolate that through millions of years of unobserved and unobservable history is a major fallacy. Observing changes in the genetic code doesn't mean those changes are limitless.

[KurtBoyer25L]

Well, I guess what you are offering is some kind of Hegelian dialectical synthesis along the lines of what Aquinas taught, and on that note I completely reject it.

There is no synthesis of God and nature, or faith and reason, in Biblical Christianity. Like Augustine said, "I have faith in order to understand". Faith comes before understanding. Faith interprets and directs my understanding. The Bible says that the Lord is the beginning of all knowledge.

I guess what I am offering is common sense. You say that the opposing viewpoint is spurious and faith-based while acting exactly like the opposition, with exception of the initial assumptions made.

[Sola_Fide]

You are absolutely right when it comes to the assumtions of evolution. However, I wouldn't extend that to all of science. Or are you getting evolution and science confused? Evolution is the most anti-scientific theory ever.

Well, you're right that Darwinism is an egregious example of fairy tale anti-science, but yes, I would extend that to all of science.

The scientific method commits the fallacy of asserting the consequent. It begins on a fallacy.

Also, observation is not an adequate basis for epistemology. It is fallacious to say "X is true because I observed it". This is what is known as the inductive fallacy. It is fallacious because an appeal to the senses to make a universal statement of truth requires

1) infallible senses

and

2) universal observation.

No one has infallible senses or universal observation of all events past, present, and future, so a universal statement of truth can't be made from observation.

Truth is deduced from axioms. Deductive reasoning is the only way to make a universal statement of truth. Science is USEFUL, but it is not TRUE. Truth cannot be obtained from the senses.

Some guys to check out who advocate this type of fideistic approach to Christian apologetics are Gordon Clark, John Robbins, Vincent Cheung, Gary Crampton...

[Gimme Some Truth]

This is why the US is a laughing stock around the world...

[Sola_Fide]

This is why the US is a laughing stock around the world...

You sound smart.

[Gimme Some Truth]

You sound smart.

Says someone who thinks science affirms the consequent... :rolleyes:

[Sola_Fide]

Says someone who thinks science affirms the consequent... :rolleyes:

???

Um, okay. Maybe you want an atheistic philosopher to show you it does? Here you go:


All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: "If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true." This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.

-Bertrand Russell

[asurfaholic]

Even if evolution is false, it doesn't make God true. Seriously, how hard is it to say we really don't know for sure?

And if Evolution is True, it doesn't make God False.

There are certain kinds of evolution, most are reasonable and evidenced. Other kinds are baloney, such as the theory that all animals came from one origin.... Big Bang... really?

[YumYum]

There are many reasons some theists have an aversion to science.

1. Some see the scientific facts that contradict religious texts as a direct assault and threat to their religion.

2. Some see the absence of God in scientific theories themselves as as means of ignoring God.

3. Others feel threatened by the reduction in religious followers or worse, the reduction in tithes and collections.

4. Finally, some just flat out fear what they don't understand and would rather vanquish it than accept it.

The majority of Evangelical Christians believe that God created the Universe, the Earth, and man, all within a 6 day period, with each day being literally 24 hours. They are known as "Young Earth" creationists.

They also believe that Satan the Devil put dinosaur fossils in the Earth to stumble Christians from believing in the Creation account in Genesis.

They also believe in a global flood theory: that Noah and his family built a wooden boat 4500 years ago and put every species of animal on Earth in it, and floated around for a 120 days with no windows or doors open for ventilation. Then God opened a window to let the stink and the flies out. Noah started with two flies; a male and a female, but with all the animal poop on the ark from the millions of animals, those two flies multiplied into billions of flies. The first thing Noah did when he got off the ark was tie one on; his son was so bothered by the trip he had sex with his dad while his dad was drunk. From Noah's three son's and their wives all of mankind has come into existence. This was all 4500 years ago.

If science supported the stories in the Bible, Christians would be embracing science and shoving it down everybodies throat.

[Sola_Fide]

The majority of Evangelical Christians believe that God created the Universe, the Earth, and man, all within a 6 day period, with each day being literally 24 hours. They are known as "Young Earth" creationists.

They also believe that Satan the Devil put dinosaur fossils in the Earth to stumble Christians from believing in the Creation account in Genesis.

They also believe in a global flood theory: that Noah and his family built a wooden boat 4500 years ago and put every species of animal on Earth in it, and floated around for a 120 days with no windows or doors open for ventilation. Then God opened a window to let the stink and the flies out. Noah started with two flies; a male and a female, but with all the animal poop on the ark from the millions of animals, those two flies multiplied into billions of flies. The first thing Noah did when he got off the ark was tie one on; his son was so bothered by the trip he had sex with his dad while his dad was drunk. From Noah's three son's and their wives all of mankind has come into existence. This was all 4500 years ago.

If science supported the stories in the Bible, Christians would be embracing science and shoving it down everybodies throat.

.........



Um....What are you talking about?

[YumYum]

.........



Um....What are you talking about?

The Bible and "deductive reasoning". I forgot to mention about the guy who spent three days inside a whale's belly, or the talking donkey.

[Sola_Fide]

No, seriously. I'm asking. What are you talking about?

Are you that ignorant? I mean.... I'm sorry man, but you are intensely ignorant. I guess you are okay with showing your ignorance on public messageboards like that, but if it was me, I would be ashamed of myself. Go ahead man, its all you:).

I'm not going to engage in any of your misunderstandings. The internet is a big place with a lot of information, I'll just let you find out on your own:).

[Sola_Fide]

Besides, who is bringing up the Bible (and egregiously misrepresenting it)? Not me:) I haven't brought it up once. My arguments are about the logical consistency of worldviews. It has nothing to do with how you think Noah had two flies on a lump of crap (lol), they are arguments in the realm of logic.

Until you even try to refute my arguments, I'm not even going to touch your innacuracies of Scripture. Let's try to get over the one hurdle first, then I'll teach you about the other.

[YumYum]

No, seriously. I'm asking. What are you talking about?

Are you that ignorant? I mean.... I'm sorry man, but you are intensely ignorant. I guess you are okay with showing your ignorance on public messageboards like that, but if it was me, I would be ashamed of myself. Go ahead man, its all you:).

I'm not going to engage in any of your misunderstandings. The internet is a big place with a lot of information, I'll just let you find out on your own:).

I'm ignorant? You posted this old thread to fight with evolutionists. That is all you like to do is attack atheists and evolutionists. We are in the middle of an important campaign, and you found this thread and posted it because it is in the "General Politics" sub-forum where the whole world can read it. It should be moved to the religion forum.

You come across as the absolute authority on stuff that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You are trying to scare away, intelligent, educated people from this board and from Ron Paul's campaign, and you may be succeeding.

I have a question for you regarding your assertion that you use only "deductive reasoning".

You believe in predestination; that God predestines everything before it takes place. If that is the case, why do you pray? Why do you ask people to pray on your behalf? Even if they do, God has "predestined" what is going to happen, so if "predestination" is true, prayer would be a waste of time because whatever God predestined, its going to happen as he predestined. Yet, the Bible commands that we should "pray for one another".

Now, here is a scenario where predestination can be explained regarding prayer. Millions of years ago, when God was putting together his "Predestination Daily Planner", God said to Himself "I'm going to have John Smith die a horrible death by which he will suffer". But then God got to thinking "I need to make prayer look like it works, so I will have Billy Jones pray in public for John Smith to get better, then I will heal John Smith. This will make people think that I answer prayers and I can change my predestined itinerary."

Where is the "deductive reasoning" in this?

The reason that some Christians believe in predestination, is because it gives an excuse for the question that people always ask: "If there is a loving, all powerful God, why does He allow all the suffering in the world?" Simple. He "predestined" it. That clears that up.

So, before you call me names and accuse me of being ignorant, you need to realize how silly you look, cramming predestination down everybodies throat (like claiming that God predestined Hitler's mistreatment of the Jews), and then asking people to pray for you by asking God to change what he has already predestined. Your theory invalidates prayer, and makes it look like a waste of time.

So, who is "ignorant" here?

[Ranger29860]

Uh, no, it doesn't explain either. Would you care to explain how life came from non-life in evolutionary terms?

Your reply and the original post you replied to are both wrong. Evolution simply explains the diversity of life not the origin of life itself. I think you are getting evolution confused with Abiogenises.

[PaulConventionWV]

Well, you're right that Darwinism is an egregious example of fairy tale anti-science, but yes, I would extend that to all of science.

The scientific method commits the fallacy of asserting the consequent. It begins on a fallacy.

Also, observation is not an adequate basis for epistemology. It is fallacious to say "X is true because I observed it". This is what is known as the inductive fallacy. It is fallacious because an appeal to the senses to make a universal statement of truth requires

1) infallible senses

and

2) universal observation.

No one has infallible senses or universal observation of all events past, present, and future, so a universal statement of truth can't be made from observation.

Truth is deduced from axioms. Deductive reasoning is the only way to make a universal statement of truth. Science is USEFUL, but it is not TRUE. Truth cannot be obtained from the senses.

Some guys to check out who advocate this type of fideistic approach to Christian apologetics are Gordon Clark, John Robbins, Vincent Cheung, Gary Crampton...

While all this is true, the scientific method is our best way of gaining and understanding knowledge in this world. Furthermore, based on a Biblical worldview, it is logical to make the conclusions based on observation. We can't ever know for sure, but we at least know there is consistency in nature, and we can see why in studying the Bible.

[Ranger29860]

And if Evolution is True, it doesn't make God False.

There are certain kinds of evolution, most are reasonable and evidenced. Other kinds are baloney, such as the theory that all animals came from one origin.... Big Bang... really?


/facepalm

At this point i am just assuming no one listened in biology class when they went to school. EVOLUTION IS NOT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. The Big Bang Theory has NOTHING to do with evolution. Abiogenisis has NOTHING to do with evolution. They are completely separate fields of study. Evolution is the explanation of diversity of life. If you are going to argue against a scientific theory then please for the love of god actually know what the theory is.

Simply coming in here and spouting that nonsense shows that there is a group of individuals in this country who say evolution is not true that actually don't know what evolution is.

[PaulConventionWV]

The majority of Evangelical Christians believe that God created the Universe, the Earth, and man, all within a 6 day period, with each day being literally 24 hours. They are known as "Young Earth" creationists.

They also believe that Satan the Devil put dinosaur fossils in the Earth to stumble Christians from believing in the Creation account in Genesis.

They also believe in a global flood theory: that Noah and his family built a wooden boat 4500 years ago and put every species of animal on Earth in it, and floated around for a 120 days with no windows or doors open for ventilation. Then God opened a window to let the stink and the flies out. Noah started with two flies; a male and a female, but with all the animal poop on the ark from the millions of animals, those two flies multiplied into billions of flies. The first thing Noah did when he got off the ark was tie one on; his son was so bothered by the trip he had sex with his dad while his dad was drunk. From Noah's three son's and their wives all of mankind has come into existence. This was all 4500 years ago.

No, you are either lying or you are just wrong when you state that creationists believe dinosaur fossils were put there to test our faith. That is absolutely not true. We believe that dinosaurs existed along with man and eventually became extinct. There are dinosaur bones with living red blood cells still in them. Care to explain how they survived for 80million years?

You are also either wrong or lying when you say we believe Noah put every species of animal on the ark. He put every KIND on the ark. We don't know exactly what a kind is, but it's not really important for us to know. Can you define species?


If science supported the stories in the Bible, Christians would be embracing science and shoving it down everybodies throat.

You're right, and that's what I'm trying to do.;)

However, you of all people should know that propaganda, such as the secular propaganda in schools has a large effect on people's minds. Often, the truth can be hidden, and that is the case here.

[PaulConventionWV]

Your reply and the original post you replied to are both wrong. Evolution simply explains the diversity of life not the origin of life itself. I think you are getting evolution confused with Abiogenises.

No, the first poster did that. I know it's not the same as evolution. He asserted that it was, so I asked him to explain it.

[Ranger29860]

No, you are either lying or you are just wrong when you state that creationists believe dinosaur fossils were put there to test our faith. That is absolutely not true. We believe that dinosaurs existed along with man and eventually became extinct. There are dinosaur bones with living red blood cells still in them. Care to explain how they survived for 80million years?

Link please cause all i can find is either Christians claiming this is true, a weird email that was produces saying this. and a misquote from a NOVA special. Can you link me a published paper or there original article this is based off of?

[Ranger29860]

No, the first poster did that. I know it's not the same as evolution. He asserted that it was, so I asked him to explain it.


ah ok now that i go back and read it in that context i can see what you were saying. I just assume since its usualy the case that people get that wrong(see post after my last reply to you lol)

[Sola_Fide]

I'm ignorant? You posted this old thread to fight with evolutionists. That is all you like to do is attack atheists and evolutionists. We are in the middle of an important campaign, and you found this thread and posted it because it is in the "General Politics" sub-forum where the whole world can read it. It should be moved to the religion forum.

You come across as the absolute authority on stuff that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You are trying to scare away, intelligent, educated people from this board and from Ron Paul's campaign, and you may be succeeding.

I have a question for you regarding your assertion that you use only "deductive reasoning".

You believe in predestination; that God predestines everything before it takes place. If that is the case, why do you pray? Why do you ask people to pray on your behalf? Even if they do, God has "predestined" what is going to happen, so if "predestination" is true, prayer would be a waste of time because whatever God predestined, its going to happen as he predestined. Yet, the Bible commands that we should "pray for one another".

Now, here is a scenario where predestination can be explained regarding prayer. Millions of years ago, when God was putting together his "Predestination Daily Planner", God said to Himself "I'm going to have John Smith die a horrible death by which he will suffer". But then God got to thinking "I need to make prayer look like it works, so I will have Billy Jones pray in public for John Smith to get better, then I will heal John Smith. This will make people think that I answer prayers and I can change my predestined itinerary."

Where is the "deductive reasoning" in this?

The reason that some Christians believe in predestination, is because it gives an excuse for the question that people always ask: "If there is a loving, all powerful God, why does He allow all the suffering in the world?" Simple. He "predestined" it. That clears that up.

So, before you call me names and accuse me of being ignorant, you need to realize how silly you look, cramming predestination down everybodies throat (like claiming that God predestined Hitler's mistreatment of the Jews), and then asking people to pray for you by asking God to change what he has already predestined. Your theory invalidates prayer, and makes it look like a waste of time.

So, who is "ignorant" here?


God predestines our prayers. Prayer doesn't change God, it changes you. This is why we pray. It changes us.

Now, you can get caught up in all of the mind-twisting aspects of predestination, or you can just let the hidden councils of God be His and let His revealed will in the Bible to us be ours.

I'm not shoving anything down anyone's throat. I seem to be one of the two or three Reformed Christians who post here, and I would like to think I defend Christ and defend the influence that Calvinism has had on this American experiment in Liberty. That is all I care about, or my time spent here would just be a waste.

Now, about God predestinating evil things.... this is a very tough subject. But Christianity is NOT dualism. Christianity is not some worldview where there are two equally powerful forces of good and evil working in the universe. Christianity proclaims the Creator, Lord, Ruler, King and Governor of this universe. Everything is subject to Him. The founders simply referred to it as "Providence".


And Oh, Heaven help us! that we have a Christian talking about his faith in the "general subforum". Heaven forbid that some Republican primary voters come across a thread that disputes evolution. That might really turn them off, huh? :rolleyes:

[SamuraisWisdom]

Are we really having a debate on evolution vs creation in the 21st century? I guess this just shows that no matter how much evidence is presented, there will always be people who put personal beliefs over facts. :(

[Ranger29860]

Ok i found the original published paper on the "discovery of blood cells story"

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6291.abstract

If you read the concussion and discussion parts of this study it is clear that they do not call these LIVING cells and simply say that the patterns they are seeing in the bone is possibly derived from dead cells of "ancient origin".

The study is completely free just click full text on right side.

Also here is the original article that claimed blood cells.
http://creation.com/sensational-dinosaur-blood-report

[YumYum]

No, you are either lying or you are just wrong when you state that creationists believe dinosaur fossils were put there to test our faith. That is absolutely not true. We believe that dinosaurs existed along with man and eventually became extinct. There are dinosaur bones with living red blood cells still in them. Care to explain how they survived for 80million years?

You are also either wrong or lying when you say we believe Noah put every species of animal on the ark. He put every KIND on the ark. We don't know exactly what a kind is, but it's not really important for us to know. Can you define species?



You're right, and that's what I'm trying to do.;)

However, you of all people should know that propaganda, such as the secular propaganda in schools has a large effect on people's minds. Often, the truth can be hidden, and that is the case here.

No, actually "it's atheists who bury dinosaur bones just before they dance naked in the moonlight with their pagan friend."

Fundies started teaching around 1900 that Satan put dinosaur fossils in the ground to stumble Christians, so they wouldn't believe in the Creation account. My dad worked for a Fundie in TN whose church still believes this. Christians who believe this don't broadcast it, because it leaves them subject to ridicule. Just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean others don't believe it.

So, are you a "young Earth creationist"? Do you believe God created the Universe in 6 days that were 24 hours? Do you believe that there was a global flood 4500 years ago? Do you believe that God put poisonous snakes and spiders/insects on the boat? What did Noah do with all the poop? He couldn't throw it out the window because God kept the window shut for 120 days after the rain stopped, so that would be 160 days, correct? That's a lot of poop and pee, and a lot of stink. I have two male goats and they alone have stunk up my property to the point I gag, so I can imagine the Hell Noah and his family went through. Do you believe in this stuff? Is this part of "deductive reasoning"?

[Dr.3D]

Are we really having a debate on evolution vs creation in the 21st century? I guess this just shows that no matter how much evidence is presented, there will always be people who put personal beliefs over facts. :(

Exactly, especially if those beliefs are reinforced by "education".

[Sola_Fide]

Exactly, especially if those beliefs are reinforced by "education".

Exactly. The public schools are the established state churches of Darwinism. The educators are the new state-appointed bishops.

People actually think that education is somehow "neutral". NOTHING could be further from the truth. There is an agenda of socialization that is fundamental to public education. As Marx said, "Darwinism suits my purpose".

[PaulConventionWV]

Ok i found the original published paper on the "discovery of blood cells story"

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6291.abstract

If you read the concussion and discussion parts of this study it is clear that they do not call these LIVING cells and simply say that the patterns they are seeing in the bone is possibly derived from dead cells of "ancient origin".

The study is completely free just click full text on right side.

Also here is the original article that claimed blood cells.
http://creation.com/sensational-dinosaur-blood-report

Good, you found it! The article notes that:


It is of course much less of a surprise to those who believe Genesis, in which case dinosaur remains are at most only a few thousand years old.

Yes, maybe it was misleading when I said "living." I'm sorry, but the original evidence still stands.

[SamuraisWisdom]

Exactly. The public schools are the established state churches of Darwinism. The educators are the new state-appointed bishops.

People actually think that education is somehow "neutral". NOTHING could be further from the truth. There is an agenda of socialization that is fundamental to public education. As Marx said, "Darwinism suits my purpose".

Posts like this make me want to bang my head against a wall. Is there bias in education? Yeah, probably. But not to the extent that you're implying. Science is what it is, and it might change over time based on new discoveries, but what they teach kids in grade school is not politically motivated. To quote Marx supporting Darwinism is disingenuous because Darwinism is essentially the "survival of the fittest" in terms of evolutionary species. But people take that idea out of the context of science and apply it to social situations so Darwin's name gets tarnished. And actually, people generally against free-market economics site Darwinism as an argument, so it goes both ways.

[SamuraisWisdom]

Here's a different way to look at Creation:

The theory of Evolution is heavily supported by scientific evidence and at this point cannot be denied. Humans evolved from other forms of life on the Earth. This is widely accepted as fact. But that doesn't mean that Creation should be ignored.

Though humanity did evolve from other life forms, and the Earth was created along with the rest of the solar system billions of years ago, that still leaves the mystery of how the Universe began. No scientist alive today can claim with 100% certainty that they know the answer to this question. In fact, there are scientists who believe there is a chance that the Universe itself is a mechanism of creation from another source.

So the reality is that both theories could be correct. Evolution is almost a certainty, but Creation cannot be ruled out either concerning the beginning of the Universe 12-15 billion years ago.

[Sola_Fide]

Ok i found the original published paper on the "discovery of blood cells story"

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6291.abstract

If you read the concussion and discussion parts of this study it is clear that they do not call these LIVING cells and simply say that the patterns they are seeing in the bone is possibly derived from dead cells of "ancient origin".

The study is completely free just click full text on right side.

Also here is the original article that claimed blood cells.
http://creation.com/sensational-dinosaur-blood-report

Interesting. Thanks for posting!

[heavenlyboy34]

Here's a different way to look at Creation:

The theory of Evolution is heavily supported by scientific evidence and at this point cannot be denied. Humans evolved from other forms of life on the Earth. This is widely accepted as fact. But that doesn't mean that Creation should be ignored.

Though humanity did evolve from other life forms, and the Earth was created along with the rest of the solar system billions of years ago, that still leaves the mystery of how the Universe began. No scientist alive today can claim with 100% certainty that they know the answer to this question. In fact, there are scientists who believe there is a chance that the Universe itself is a mechanism of creation from another source.

So the reality is that both theories could be correct. Evolution is almost a certainty, but Creation cannot be ruled out either concerning the beginning of the Universe 12-15 billion years ago.
No, it's not. It's "supported" by conjecture and fallacious reasoning. Remember, piltdown man was once touted as "proof" of evolution and eugenics was once "legitimate" science (then there's the geocentric model of the universe which was widely held as "fact" and the fact that leeching was once considered good medical science). ;) Science does not give us truth (nor does it purport to). It's a system of inductive reasoning, that's all. Everything science says is subject to being refuted by other scientists in the future.

[Sola_Fide]

No, it's not. It's "supported" by conjecture and fallacious reasoning. Remember, piltdown man was once touted as "proof" of evolution and eugenics was once "legitimate" science (then there's the geocentric model of the universe which was widely held as "fact" and the fact that leeching was once considered good medical science). ;) Science does not give us truth (nor does it purport to). It's a system of inductive reasoning, that's all. Everything science says is subject to being refuted by other scientists in the future.

Yes. Karl Popper, one of the most famous philosophers of science in the 20th century, said:


First, although in science we do our best to find the truth, we are conscious of the fact that we can never be sure whether we have got it. We know that our scientific theories always remain hypotheses.

In science there is no "knowledge" in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth.

Einstein declared that his theory was false: he said that it would be a better approximation to the truth than Newton's, but he gave reasons why he would not, even if all predictions came out right, regard it as a true theory. Our attempts to see and to find the truth are not final, but open to improvement: our knowledge, our doctrine is conjectural; it consist of guesses, of hypotheses rather than of final and certain truths.

Science was never meant to be deified like it has been with secularism. It was never meant to furnish concrete truths. Concrete truths come from something above and outside our observations.

[wowrevolution]

There are many possibilities that abound. Once you accept that all the rules of science can be broken then the possibilities are endless.

I divide people into a variety of categories.
Religious folk
Young Earth Creationists
Big Bang Creationists

Rational folk
Ancient Astronaut Theory seen as an area of reasonable investigation
Pantheistic
Electric Universe
Holoscience
Humanity with amnesia due to Ice Age Catastrophe

Primary types of people:
Coast to Coast AM fans
People who don't listen to Coast to Coast AM

I end this dialog with the theme to the X-files

[Sola_Fide]

There are many possibilities that abound. Once you accept that all the rules of science can be broken then the possibilities are endless.

I divide people into a variety of categories.
Religious folk
Young Earth Creationists
Big Bang Creationists

Rational folk
Ancient Astronaut Theory seen as an area of reasonable investigation
Pantheistic
Electric Universe
Holoscience
Humanity with amnesia due to Ice Age Catastrophe

Primary types of people:
Coast to Coast AM fans
People who don't listen to Coast to Coast AM

I end this dialog with the theme to the X-files

Huh?

[heavenlyboy34]

There are many possibilities that abound. Once you accept that all the rules of science can be broken then the possibilities are endless.

I divide people into a variety of categories.
Religious folk
Young Earth Creationists
Big Bang Creationists

Rational folk
Ancient Astronaut Theory seen as an area of reasonable investigation
Pantheistic
Electric Universe
Holoscience
Humanity with amnesia due to Ice Age Catastrophe

Primary types of people:
Coast to Coast AM fans
People who don't listen to Coast to Coast AM

I end this dialog with the theme to the X-files
That is ridiculously oversimplified, and frankly laughable.

[Ranger29860]

Good, you found it! The article notes that:



Yes, maybe it was misleading when I said "living." I'm sorry, but the original evidence still stands.

If you read the published paper they actual attempt to explain why the interior of that fossil was fresh in comparison to others. It had to do with where it was found and the climate in which it was fossilized.

[ClayTrainor]

Posts like this make me want to bang my head against a wall.

You're not alone, man. And you'll find that arguing with them is about as productive as banging your head against the wall. :)

[YumYum]

God predestines our prayers. Prayer doesn't change God, it changes you. This is why we pray. It changes us.

Uh huh. And did God tell this? Do you hear voices?


Now, you can get caught up in all of the mind-twisting aspects of predestination, or you can just let the hidden councils of God be His and let His revealed will in the Bible to us be ours.

No, I don't get caught up in the "mind-twisting aspects of predestination", just like I don't fret trying to figure out how Santa Claus delivers Christmas gifts to every house in the world on December 24th.


I'm not shoving anything down anyone's throat. I seem to be one of the two or three Reformed Christians who post here, and I would like to think I defend Christ and defend the influence that Calvinism has had on this American experiment in Liberty. That is all I care about, or my time spent here would just be a waste.

You are an apologist for Calvinism. You judge people that if they don't follow Calvin, they are a heathen; there is no in-between with you, no middle ground. Your way, or the highway. Calvin was a religious fanatic, who thought he was right about everything. He approved and called for the execution of a man who disagreed with him. What does that have to do with "Liberty". Scientist on the other hand, are humble enough to recognize when they are wrong. After Einstein did his thesis on Quantum, he admitted to a colleague: "I think I screwed up!"


Now, about God predestinating evil things.... this is a very tough subject. But Christianity is NOT dualism. Christianity is not some worldview where there are two equally powerful forces of good and evil working in the universe. Christianity proclaims the Creator, Lord, Ruler, King and Governor of this universe. Everything is subject to Him. The founders simply referred to it as "Providence".

What are talking about? According to you he predestined Hitler. Did you not claim as much? If He doesn't predestine evil, then He has to predestine everything around the evil events that will take place in the future, and if this is the case, why doesn't He, being all loving and compassionate, predestine events which will circumvent the evil so that people won't have to suffer? What good is there in having a God if He doesn't do anything for you? You asked people to pray for you. Did it change you? Are you now a nicer, better person? Did prayer change your circumstances? If it didn't, what was the point of having everyone pray for you? God is going to do whatever He predestines; prayer ain't going to change anything...but you. So, I take it, you have changed, but how? I don't see the change. You are still attacking atheists and evolutionists on this forum. What profound change from all the praying that has been done on your behalf, has come over you, since your circumstances have not changed, only you as a person have changed?


And Oh, Heaven help us! that we have a Christian talking about his faith in the "general subforum". Heaven forbid that some Republican primary voters come across a thread that disputes evolution. That might really turn them off, huh? :rolleyes:

Stop playing games, AB. You know exactly what you are doing. Pat's article is in the "general sub-forum" because it was posted in 2009, before we had a religion sub-forum, otherwise the OP would have posted in the religion forum. You brought up this old thread for everybody on the net to watch you attack evolutionists. But that is ok. Its here in the general, so I think everybody should follow this thread and learn something.

[YumYum]

No, it's not. It's "supported" by conjecture and fallacious reasoning. Remember, piltdown man was once touted as "proof" of evolution and eugenics was once "legitimate" science (then there's the geocentric model of the universe which was widely held as "fact" and the fact that leeching was once considered good medical science). ;) Science does not give us truth (nor does it purport to). It's a system of inductive reasoning, that's all. Everything science says is subject to being refuted by other scientists in the future.

So, what gives us "truth"? The Bible? "Deductive reasoning"? Is Noah's boat story derived from "deductive reasoning"?

[YumYum]

Yes. Karl Popper, one of the most famous philosophers of science in the 20th century, said:



Science was never meant to be deified like it has been with secularism. It was never meant to furnish concrete truths. Concrete truths come from something above and outside our observations.

Right, so we just make stuff up.

[YumYum]

Exactly. The public schools are the established state churches of Darwinism. The educators are the new state-appointed bishops.

People actually think that education is somehow "neutral". NOTHING could be further from the truth. There is an agenda of socialization that is fundamental to public education. As Marx said, "Darwinism suits my purpose".

I have a college degree. At no time was "Darwinism" pushed on me. What I was taught was how to do "critical thinking". Did Calvin approve of "critical thinking", or did he have people roasted alive for doing so?

[heavenlyboy34]

So, what gives us "truth"? The Bible? "Deductive reasoning"? Is Noah's boat story derived from "deductive reasoning"?
Deductive reasoning with sound premises gives us truth. This truism goes back at least to Aristotle.

[heavenlyboy34]

I have a college degree. At no time was "Darwinism" pushed on me. What I was taught was how to do "critical thinking". Did Calvin approve of "critical thinking", or did he have people roasted alive for doing so?

If you were taught "critical thinking", why haven't you applied it in this thread?

[YumYum]

If you were taught "critical thinking", why haven't you applied it in this thread?

So, did you come to the conclusion about a global flood from "deductive reasoning", and "critical thinking"?

[Sola_Fide]

I bumped a thread for you YumYum.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?298608-What-Is-Christian-Philosophy&p=3378946#post3378946

[heavenlyboy34]

So, did you come to the conclusion about a global flood from "deductive reasoning", and "critical thinking"?

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I didn't talk about a global flood in this thread. If you mean the authenticity of the documents, yes they are authentic. There are more than 10,000 historical documents backing up the historical authenticity of the bible(more than the Odyssey or the Iliad). The exact meaning of the text, I wouldn't purport to know. I wouldn't trust anyone who claims to know EXACTLY what the text means, either. We can make some very well-informed guesses, though.

[YumYum]

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I didn't talk about a global flood in this thread. If you mean the authenticity of the documents, yes they are authentic. There are more than 10,000 historical documents backing up the historical authenticity of the bible(more than the Odyssey or the Iliad). The exact meaning of the text, I wouldn't purport to know. I wouldn't trust anyone who claims to know EXACTLY what the text means, either. We can make some very well-informed guesses, though.

Do you believe in the global flood account in Genesis?

[Sola_Fide]

Do you believe in the global flood account in Genesis?

YumYum,

Are you going to read my article? Or are you going to derail the thread more and more? I started out with a logical attack on empiricism and you have made it devolve into a Noah's ark thread.

Go back to page 2 and 3 and try to answer my questions. Better yet, read the article I bumped for you. All your answers are in there:)

[heavenlyboy34]

Do you believe in the global flood account in Genesis?
Why are you derailing this thread? Having reasoning difficulties? ;)

[YumYum]

YumYum,

Are you going to read my article? Or are you going to derail the thread more and more? I started out with a logical attack on empiricism and you have made it devolve into a Noah's ark thread.

Go back to page 2 and 3 and try to answer my questions. Better yet, read the article I bumped for you. All your answers are in there:)

I read the article, and like Theocrat, I don't agree with some of the points made. First of all, "God's Word" is Jesus, not some book. The Bible is not infallible, and is loaded with contradictions. Jesus never said "come to the Bible!", no, He said "Come to me!" How do you do that? With prayer. You don't believe in evolution. You believe in the Garden of Eden story and the Genesis account of creation. Why? Because it is in the Bible.

That is the only reason you believe in it, because it is in the Bible. There is no evidence that God created man and woman in a garden and had them running around naked eating from fruit tress, nor that there was a talking snake that seduced the woman. You got that from the Bible; not from "deductive reasoning".

So, the Bible is your authority, you have made that clear by the article you just had me read. It isn't "deductive reasoning", but the Bible that tells you what to believe.

The Bible teaches that there was a global flood. There was a man named Noah who built a wooden boat that was 450 ft long and animals from all over the Earth traveled to Noah's boat to get on it. That is a lot of animals. The kolas and the kangaroos swam across the ocean, the Pandas walked over from China, and since the only thing they can eat is bamboo, God packed a lunch sack for them to have nourishment for their journey to the boat. He also packed a lunch sack of eucalyptus leaves for the kolas.

So, you had elephants, rhinoceros, hippos, etc.; all these big animals going into Noah's big boat. When they are all in, God shuts up the ark; no open doors or windows for 180 days. No ventilation, no fresh air, but tons of poop and pee for Noah and his family to smell and walk through day after day. Oh, and Noah had to feed the thousands of animals daily, or they would starve. So, he had to set aside food for each animal according to their plants they ate. Were lions meat eaters then? If so, Noah would have had to bring on lots and lots of meat for the meat-eaters, and he would have had to make sure that the gazelles were no where near the lions.

So day after day, poor Noah and his family had to feed and water tens of thousands of animals, all the while getting no relief from all the pee and poop that was piling up everyday.

After 180 days of this, God opens the window. You would have thought that there would have been a mass exodus out that window by every bird on the boat to escape the stench, but no, only the dove left. After finding no place to land, he came back. Was Noah shoveling poop out the window when God opened it? No, he patiently waited for the dove to return.

As you know, the story continues with the boat landing on a mountain side, even though that is physically impossible (it would have had to land on level ground). Noah gets drunk from all the stress and gets raped by his son. The animals are set free, and from the three sons and their wives, we get all of mankind. This all happened 4500 years ago. Do you believe in this story because of "deductive reasoning", or because it is in the Bible, the same book that gives the creation account?

[Sola_Fide]

I read the article, and like Theocrat, I don't agree with some of the points made. First of all, "God's Word" is Jesus, not some book. The Bible is not infallible, and is loaded with contradictions. Jesus never said "come to the Bible!", no, He said "Come to me!" How do you do that? With prayer. You don't believe in evolution. You believe in the Garden of Eden story and the Genesis account of creation. Why? Because it is in the Bible.

That is the only reason you believe in it, because it is in the Bible. There is no evidence that God created man and woman in a garden and had them running around naked eating from fruit tress, nor that there was a talking snake that seduced the woman. You got that from the Bible; not from "deductive reasoning".

So, the Bible is your authority, you have made that clear by the article you just had me read. It isn't "deductive reasoning", but the Bible that tells you what to believe.

The Bible teaches that there was a global flood. There was a man named Noah who built a wooden boat that was 450 ft long and animals from all over the Earth traveled to Noah's boat to get on it. That is a lot of animals. The kolas and the kangaroos swam across the ocean, the Pandas walked over from China, and since the only thing they can eat is bamboo, God packed a lunch sack for them to have nourishment for their journey to the boat. He also packed a lunch sack of eucalyptus leaves for the kolas.

So, you had elephants, rhinoceros, hippos, etc.; all these big animals going into Noah's big boat. When they are all in, God shuts up the ark; no open doors or windows for 180 days. No ventilation, no fresh air, but tons of poop and pee for Noah and his family to smell and walk through day after day. Oh, and Noah had to feed the thousands of animals daily, or they would starve. So, he had to set aside food for each animal according to their plants they ate. Were lions meat eaters then? If so, Noah would have had to bring on lots and lots of meat for the meat-eaters, and he would have had to make sure that the gazelles were no where near the lions.

So day after day, poor Noah and his family had to feed and water tens of thousands of animals, all the while getting no relief from all the pee and poop that was piking up everyday.

After 180 days of this, God opens the window. You would have thought that there would have been a mass exodus out that window by every bird on the boat to escape the stench, but no, only the dove left. After finding no place to land, he came back. Was Noah shoveling poop out the window when God opened it? No, he patiently waited for the dove to return.

As you know, the story continues with the boat landing on a mountain side, even though that is physically impossible (it would have had to land on level ground). Noah gets drunk from all the stress and gets raped by his son. The animals are set free, and from the three sons and their wives, we get all of mankind. This all happened 4500 years ago. Do you believe in this story because of "deductive reasoning", or because it is in the Bible, the same book that gives the creation account?

LoL:) Is that the stuff they teach you at the atheist conventions, YumYum? No wonder they are all so misinformed. Do they ever think you should prooftext a scripture? Do they even read the actual text or just make up a bunch of misrepresentations like you just did? Hmmmm. No wonder...

If you read the article, why so many questions about deductions, since it is explained in so many places?

Why don't you go back to the thread and quote what you think is wrong and try to refute it. Thanks. I'll be waiting to see what you come up with.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?298608-What-Is-Christian-Philosophy&p=3378962#post3378962

[YumYum]

LoL:) Is that the stuff they teach you at the atheist conventions, YumYum? No wonder they are all so misinformed. Do they ever think you should prooftext a scripture? Do they even read the actual text or just make up a bunch of misrepresentations like you just did? Hmmmm. No wonder...

If you read the article, why so many questions about deductions, since it is explained in so many places?

Why don't you go back to the thread and quote what you think is wrong and try to refute it. Thanks. I'll be waiting to see what you come up with.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?298608-What-Is-Christian-Philosophy&p=3378962#post3378962

No problem. I would love to. But I want you to realize what "deductive reasoning" is. If the Bible contains a mythological story such as the story of Noah's ark in Genesis, then deductive reasoning would allow us to conclude that the creation account in Genesis can also be mythological. Because you made the statement that you know the "truth" from "deductive reasoning"; not from science, and I know you believe in the story about Noah and his boat, (science actually disproves the global flood account of Genesis), and since you know it is a fact from "deductive reasoning" and not observation, I would like you to share exactly what "deductive reasoning" you used to come to believe in the global flood theory with Noah's boat full of animals with all their poop and pee and the stink? And the flies. Don't forget about the billions of flies that were inside that ark. I feel sorry for Noah, don't you?

But yes, I will review the article and make a rebuttal to the things I don't agree with, or that I question. Give me a few minutes.

[Golding]

I never understood the politicization of evolution, nor some religions' obsession with evolution being somehow in opposition to creation. The article is not well-reasoned at all, and sort of demonstrates how Pat Buchanan tends to be hit-or-miss. This was one of the misses.

[Ranger29860]

And Darwinists still have not explained the origin of life, nor have they been able to produce life from non-life.



That line right there discredits the entire article.

Just a little knowledge for people out there that are interested. We may not have created lfe from no life yet (Abiogenisis) but we are damn close now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/science/21cell.html

[PaulConventionWV]

No, actually "it's atheists who bury dinosaur bones just before they dance naked in the moonlight with their pagan friend."

Fundies started teaching around 1900 that Satan put dinosaur fossils in the ground to stumble Christians, so they wouldn't believe in the Creation account. My dad worked for a Fundie in TN whose church still believes this. Christians who believe this don't broadcast it, because it leaves them subject to ridicule. Just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean others don't believe it.

So, are you a "young Earth creationist"? Do you believe God created the Universe in 6 days that were 24 hours? Do you believe that there was a global flood 4500 years ago? Do you believe that God put poisonous snakes and spiders/insects on the boat? What did Noah do with all the poop? He couldn't throw it out the window because God kept the window shut for 120 days after the rain stopped, so that would be 160 days, correct? That's a lot of poop and pee, and a lot of stink. I have two male goats and they alone have stunk up my property to the point I gag, so I can imagine the Hell Noah and his family went through. Do you believe in this stuff? Is this part of "deductive reasoning"?

Your post was misleading. Most creationists don't believe they were put there to "test our faith" as there is more scientific evidence to explain the creationist account of dinosaurs than there is for the evolutionists. Those saying they were put there to "Test ou faith" are simply uninformed and don't feel like trying to fight back against the evolutionist propaganda.

I am not a young earth creationist. I am a creationist, however. Saying "young earth" is misleading. Young relative to what? I think over 6000 years is quite a long time.

As for the animal manure, here is one explanation:


As much as 12 U.S. tons (11 m. tons) of animal waste may have been produced daily. The key to keeping the enclosures clean was to avoid the need for Noah and his family to do the work. The right systems could also prevent the need to change animal bedding. Noah could have accomplished this in several ways. One possibility would be to allow the waste to accumulate below the animals, much as we see in modern pet shops. In this regard, there could have been slatted floors, and animals could have trampled their waste into the pits below. Small animals, such as birds, could have multiple levels in their enclosures, and waste could have simply accumulated at the bottom of each.

The danger of toxic or explosive manure gases, such as methane, would be alleviated by the constant movement of the Ark, which would have allowed manure gases to be constantly released. Secondly, methane, which is half the density of air, would quickly find its way out of a small opening such as a window. There is no reason to believe that the levels of these gases within the Ark would have approached hazardous levels.

Alternatively, sloped floors would have allowed the waste to flow into large central gutters. Noah’s family could have then dumped this overboard without an excessive expenditure of manpower.

The problem of manure odor may, at first thought, seem insurmountable. But we must remember that, throughout most of human history, humans lived together with their farm animals. Barns, separate from human living quarters, are a relatively recent development.

It didn't have to be particularly comfortable, they just had to survive.

[Brian4Liberty]

I never understood the politicization of evolution,...

Not biting, eh? Come on, chase it! It's red, it's smelly, how can you resist? Make it a litmus test! Blackberry or iPhone? :rolleyes:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LXxSHtFuqSo/TFe5yKgzbAI/AAAAAAAAANw/3HtNLHPCYo4/s1600/RedHerring.jpg

[PaulConventionWV]

If you read the published paper they actual attempt to explain why the interior of that fossil was fresh in comparison to others. It had to do with where it was found and the climate in which it was fossilized.

Sure, they will attempt to justify the theory, but science doesn't work like that. A little common sense will tell you that it is not possible for hemoglobin to last that long. If the evidence doesn't fit the theory, throw out the thoery.

[PaulConventionWV]

I bumped a thread for you YumYum.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?298608-What-Is-Christian-Philosophy&p=3378946#post3378946

While I don't necessarily agree with Calvinism, it is simply a bait to derail the discussion. Calvinism doesn't have anything to do with Creation vs. evolution.

[TheTyke]

My brother had a stuffed monkey named Darwin. :D

[Ranger29860]

Sure, they will attempt to justify the theory, but science doesn't work like that. A little common sense will tell you that it is not possible for hemoglobin to last that long. If the evidence doesn't fit the theory, throw out the thoery.

I honestly don't know what you read to come to that conclusion they did not find whole protein strands of hemoglobin they found partials in a bone that was uniquely fossilized. The only reason they took interest in this fossil to begin with was the fact that the way it fossilized was unique and allowed for the greatest chance of recovery of a whole protein strand (which they did not find). All they found the was the partial remains of hemoglobin and the patterns of absorption on the bones that suggest a slower rate of decay of the hemoglobin protein strands. They say multiple times in the study that it is a partial and was not what they were looking for. They were looking for a whole protein strand in order to start building amino acids off of it to sequence the DNA. Then they go on to suggest what would cause a slow decay like they observed and what conditions a fossil would have to be preserved in in order for a full protein strand to be recovered.

They also talk about how they confirmed the slow decay of the fossil by comparing it to controls of normal fossils and then they tested fossils around the t rex that showed the same rates of decay due to the unique environment.

[PaulConventionWV]

I honestly don't know what you read to come to that conclusion they did not find whole protein strands of hemoglobin they found partials in a bone that was uniquely fossilized. The only reason they took interest in this fossil to begin with was the fact that the way it fossilized was unique and allowed for the greatest chance of recovery of a whole protein strand (which they did not find). All they found the was the partial remains of hemoglobin and the patterns of absorption on the bones that suggest a slower rate of decay of the hemoglobin protein strands. They say multiple times in the study that it is a partial and was not what they were looking for. They were looking for a whole protein strand in order to start building amino acids off of it to sequence the DNA. Then they go on to suggest what would cause a slow decay like they observed and what conditions a fossil would have to be preserved in in order for a full protein strand to be recovered.

They also talk about how they confirmed the slow decay of the fossil by comparing it to controls of normal fossils and then they tested fossils around the t rex that showed the same rates of decay due to the unique environment.

Oh, come on. A 65million year old bone that hasn't been completely permineralized? I don't care how cold it was.

(pdf warning)

http://swordandshield.biz/fresh_dinosaur_bones.pdf


It is inconceivable dinosaur bones would have been
preserved un-fossilized for millions of years, and this
creates a serious problem for those scientists with an
evolutionary view of the world and long ages earth. To
compound the problem, the discovery of heme from
hemoglobin and remnant red blood cells in partially
fossilized bone would also be exceedingly unlikely if these
bones were more than a mere few thousand years of age.

They're finding stuff like this all over the place. The bone marrow is just like new inside the outer layer of permineralization, which can happen in a matter of weeks. Heme should not exist in the bone marrow if it were more than a few thousand years old, let alone 65million.

[Ranger29860]

Oh, come on. A 65million year old bone that hasn't been completely permineralized? I don't care how cold it was.

(pdf warning)

http://swordandshield.biz/fresh_dinosaur_bones.pdf



They're finding stuff like this all over the place. The bone marrow is just like new inside the outer layer of permineralization, which can happen in a matter of weeks. Heme should not exist in the bone marrow if it were more than a few thousand years old, let alone 65million.


Ok i read the article you linked. One real big issue with it. He provides no evidence for his conclusion he just parrots the same argument made on the website i linked about hemoglobin. The hemoglobin was not fresh that is a joke. The ACTUAL peer reviewed paper that they reference says the bone was decayed and was ancient. If the marrow was fresh as that article claim the scientific community would be ecstatic since the possible cloning of a dinosaur would be a reality. Since complete strands of DNA would have been recovered.

Also please look into the author of that article. A simple google search showed me he is not anywhere near a professional in the field of archeology or biology.

[YumYum]

YumYum,

Are you going to read my article? Or are you going to derail the thread more and more? I started out with a logical attack on empiricism and you have made it devolve into a Noah's ark thread.

Go back to page 2 and 3 and try to answer my questions. Better yet, read the article I bumped for you. All your answers are in there:)


What Is Christian Philosophy Language: English Description: A brief introduction to the system of truth found in Scripture and how it applies to salvation, science, logic, ethics, and politics. Quantity: 100 per $12.00


Within its 66 books, the Bible contains a complete system of thought. Paul tells us that "All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in Christ Jesus.íí "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.íí The Bible tells us how we may know truth, what reality is like, how we should think and act, and even what governments should do. Philosophers usually call these studies (1) epistemology: the theory of knowing; (2) metaphysics: the theory of reality; (3) ethics: the theory of conduct; and (4) politics: the theory of government. The first of these, epistemology, is the most important, for it is the most basic.

You realize that this is this man's opinion.

""All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in Christ Jesus."

Ok..but what does that have to do with the Bible, with exception to the teachings of Jesus in the four Gospels?

""All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

If Paul wrote this (he didn't, it was a follower of Paul), it would have been written before Paul's supposed execution in 64 A.D. Many books of the New Testament hadn't been written yet, so this scripture has to apply to the Old Testament. If God wrote all of the Old Testament, He made some major mistakes and many errors. Besides, there were many "scriptures" that were in existence that the Jews had that the protestants didn't include in their Bible. Are they "inspired"?


Knowledge: The Bible Tells Me So

Christianity holds that knowledge is revealed by God. Christianity is propositional truth revealed by God, propositions that have been written in the 66 books of the Bible. Divine revelation is the starting point of Christianity, its axiom. The axiom, the first principle, of Christianity is this: "The Bible alone is the Word of God.

The Bible alone is not the "Word of God". According to Revelation 19:13, Jesus is the "Word of God".


An axiom, by definition, is a beginning. Nothing comes before it; it is a first principle. All men and all philosophies have axioms; they all must start their thinking somewhere. It is impossible to prove everything. To demand proof for everything is an irrational demand.
Christianity begins with the 66 books of the Bible, for knowledge--truth--is a gift from God.

Christianity began with oral traditions. Even St. Clement didn't trust the written word. He trusted oral tradition.


Truth is a gift that God by his grace reveals to men; it is not something that men discover on their own power. Just as men do not attain salvation themselves, on their own power, but are saved by divine grace, so men do not gain knowledge on their own power, but receive knowledge as a gift from God. Man can do nothing apart from the will of God, and man can know nothing part from the revelation of God.

Ok, but man wrote the Bible, not God, so anyone can claim that God has "revealed" His "truths" to them. That is why we have all these thousands of different Christian religions competing with each other.


That does not mean that we can know only the actual statements in the Bible. We can know their logical implications as well. The Westminster Confession of Faith, written in the seventeenth century and one of the oldest Christian statements of faith, says:

The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is Truth itself), the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the word of God.

Logical implications are determined by the individual reader. What may be logical to you, may not be logical to someone else. As far as "truth" goes, what is "truth"? Pilate asked Jesus this question and never got a response. So, "truth" is whatever you want it to be.


The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, manís salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men.

What he is saying is that all we need is the Bible to know everything about God. That is his opinion. The Bible raises more questions about God, than answering them. For instance, why is the God of the Old Testament portrayed as a megalomaniac; a murdering God, who is angry much of the time, yet the New Testament says "He is a happy God"?


Notice the words of the Confession: "The whole counsel of Godíí is either expressly set down in Scripture or may be deduced from it. Everything we need for faith and life is found in the propositions of the Bible, either explicitly or implicitly. Nothing is to be added to the revelation at any time. Only logical deduction from the propositions of Scripture is permitted.

Opinions. These are his opinions.


Logic

The principles of logic--reasoning by good and necessary consequence--are contained in the Bible itself. Every word of the Bible, from Bereshith ("In the beginning") in Genesis 1:1 to Amen in Revelation 22:21, exemplifies the fundamental law of logic, the law of contradiction. "In the beginningíí means in the beginning, not a hundred years or even one second after the beginning. "Ameníí expresses agreement, not dissent. When God gave his name to Moses, "I am that I am,íí he was stating the logical law of identity. The laws of logic are embedded in every word of Scripture. Deductive reasoning is the principal tool of understanding the Bible.


So, this is where you get your "deductive reasoning" idea from. How can you use "deductive reasoning" to try and understand the Bible when you have to accept it unconditionally as the written "word of God"? I should be able to use "deductive reasoning" without a gun put to my head.


The Bible is our only source of truth. Neither science, nor history, nor archaeology, nor philosophy can furnish us with truth. A Christian must take seriously Paulís warning to the Colossians: "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and you are complete in him....íí

Again, what is "truth"? This is his opinion.

Anyways, the rest of the article is his opinion. Some things may be right, some things may be wrong.

It is amazing how men come forward and have complete understanding and knowledge of God; what he thinks, why He thinks the way He does, what he is doing and why He does it. And yet, God does not reveal Himself so explicitly. He says at Isaiah 55:8:

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the LORD.

[PaulConventionWV]

Ok i read the article you linked. One real big issue with it. He provides no evidence for his conclusion he just parrots the same argument made on the website i linked about hemoglobin. The hemoglobin was not fresh that is a joke. The ACTUAL peer reviewed paper that they reference says the bone was decayed and was ancient. If the marrow was fresh as that article claim the scientific community would be ecstatic since the possible cloning of a dinosaur would be a reality. Since complete strands of DNA would have been recovered.

Also please look into the author of that article. A simple google search showed me he is not anywhere near a professional in the field of archeology or biology.

Fresh simply means unfossilized. That they were. In fact, the climate back then was supposed to be semi-tropical up in Alaska.


How these bones could have remained in fresh condition for 70 million years is a perplexing question. One thing is certain: they were not preserved by cold. Everyone recognizes that the climate in these regions was much warmer during the time when the dinosaurs lived. In central Alberta abundant plant remains indicate that the climate here was semi-tropical. It is standard geological interpretation that even after the dinosaurs died out, the entire planet was much warmer, perhaps as the result of high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Why then did these bones not decay long ago?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/dinosaurbones.asp

The difficulties of obtaining dinosaur DNA were already outlined in the original article you linked to. Also, this refutes your claim about hemoglobin:


Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable shapes of red blood cells in unfossilized dinosaur bone is powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible's account of a recent creation." (Wieland, Carl, "Sensational Dinosaur Blood Report," Creation Ex Nihilo, vol. 19, pp. 42-43, 1997.) But in 2008 evolutionists published a paper claiming that what appeared to be blood vessels was merely the result of more recent bacteria work, forming "endocasts" that followed the shape of where the original vessels lay, and that the red blood cells are actually iron-rich spheres called framboids. In May of 2009 Schweitzer's team examined a fossil hadrosaur bone, taking extreme measures to ensure against contamination or misinterpretation. The results, published in the journal Science, bolster the original conclusion that the soft tissue (including collagens and amino acids) inside dinosaur bones is highly problematic for conventional interpretations of age.

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/old/old.htm

[Ranger29860]

Fresh simply means unfossilized. That they were. In fact, the climate back then was supposed to be semi-tropical up in Alaska.



http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/dinosaurbones.asp

The difficulties of obtaining dinosaur DNA were already outlined in the original article you linked to. Also, this refutes your claim about hemoglobin:



http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/old/old.htm


wow that is an incredibly dishonest interpretation on schweitzer's paper. sadly the paper is still pay to read but its only 30 buck its worth it imho. They have soft tissue not fresh tissue and again it did not hold complete strands of anything. And they did not doubt the age of the fossil they simply explained how this could change the way we think about organic fossilization in context of bones being petrified under certain conditions. The interior of the bone was not fresh. and no fully sequenced strands of DNA or protein of any kind was found. And again even that article links its "knowledge" back to "Sensational Dinosaur Blood Report" It is the same argument being rehashed over and over again. They have quote mined a very good scientific paper in order to further what they see as there version of truth.

Nowhere in the peer review papers is anything they say confirmed. And the stuff that are quoting is misrepresented to the point that have to be knowingly lying about it.

*edited for spelling*

[PaulConventionWV]

wow that is an incredibly dishonest interpretation on schweitzer's paper. sadly the paper is still pay to read but its only 30 buck its worth it imho. They have soft tissue not fresh tissue and again it did not hold complete strands of anything. And they did not doubt the age of the fossil they simply explained how this could change the way we think about organic fossilization in context of bones being petrified under certain conditions. The interior of the bone was not fresh. and no fully sequenced strands of DNA or protein of any kind was found. And again even that article links its "knowledge" back to "Sensational Dinosaur Blood Report" It is the same argument being rehashed over and over again. They have quote mined a very good scientific paper in order to further what they see as there version of truth.

Nowhere in the peer review papers is anything they say confirmed. And the stuff that are quoting is misrepresented to the point that have to be knowingly lying about it.

*edited for spelling*

Like I said, they'll always try to justify it by saying "this changes how we think about evolution." Well, maybe you should stop thinking about evolution for a while. You might have to think outside the box. However, it is your duty to prove that soft tissue can last that long. It shouldn't be that evolution is simply a given. Getting into detail about the condition of the bones ignores the fact that it should not look like that if it were 65 million years old. You can always say, "Oh, maybe this will change how we look at time and organic matter." No, it contradicts the theory so throw out the theory, don't try to fit the evidence to the theory.

Also, perhaps you could give some evidence of these "lies." That's a pretty strong accusation. I highly doubt that a peer-reviewed paper contains lies, or else that might call into question the peer review process.:eek:

[YumYum]

Your post was misleading. Most creationists don't believe they were put there to "test our faith" as there is more scientific evidence to explain the creationist account of dinosaurs than there is for the evolutionists.

How was my post misleading? Do you know the exact numbers of creationists who believe that Satan put the dinosaur fossils in the ground? That is absolutely a total fallacy to claim that "there is more evidence to explain the creationist account of dinosaurs than there is for the evolutionists". If God created the dinosaurs, and according to the Bible, everything He made "was good", why did He wipe them out?


I am not a young earth creationist. I am a creationist, however. Saying "young earth" is misleading. Young relative to what? I think over 6000 years is quite a long time.

The universe is 13.7 billion years old. But you believe it is only 6,000 years old, correct? How do come to such conclusions?



As for the animal manure, here is one explanation:


As much as 12 U.S. tons (11 m. tons) of animal waste may have been produced daily. The key to keeping the enclosures clean was to avoid the need for Noah and his family to do the work. The right systems could also prevent the need to change animal bedding. Noah could have accomplished this in several ways. One possibility would be to allow the waste to accumulate below the animals, much as we see in modern pet shops. In this regard, there could have been slatted floors, and animals could have trampled their waste into the pits below. Small animals, such as birds, could have multiple levels in their enclosures, and waste could have simply accumulated at the bottom of each.

The danger of toxic or explosive manure gases, such as methane, would be alleviated by the constant movement of the Ark, which would have allowed manure gases to be constantly released. Secondly, methane, which is half the density of air, would quickly find its way out of a small opening such as a window. There is no reason to believe that the levels of these gases within the Ark would have approached hazardous levels.

Alternatively, sloped floors would have allowed the waste to flow into large central gutters. Noah’s family could have then dumped this overboard without an excessive expenditure of manpower.

The problem of manure odor may, at first thought, seem insurmountable. But we must remember that, throughout most of human history, humans lived together with their farm animals. Barns, separate from human living quarters, are a relatively recent development.

It didn't have to be particularly comfortable, they just had to survive.

Where in the world did you get that explanation for all the poop in the boat?

12 tons of poop a day times 180 days is a lot of poop, and it supposedly sat at the bottom of the ark and it did not affect Noah and his family, let alone not kill all the animals in the ark? There was no windows open; God shut the ark door and all its windows. The amount of methane gas would have been lethal. 12 tons times 180 is 2,160 tons of poop. All that poop would have sunk the ark.

[Ranger29860]

Like I said, they'll always try to justify it by saying "this changes how we think about evolution." Well, maybe you should stop thinking about evolution for a while. You might have to think outside the box. However, it is your duty to prove that soft tissue can last that long. It shouldn't be that evolution is simply a given. Getting into detail about the condition of the bones ignores the fact that it should not look like that if it were 65 million years old. You can always say, "Oh, maybe this will change how we look at time and organic matter." No, it contradicts the theory so throw out the theory, don't try to fit the evidence to the theory.

Also, perhaps you could give some evidence of these "lies." That's a pretty strong accusation. I highly doubt that a peer-reviewed paper contains lies, or else that might call into question the peer review process.:eek:

Where in the hell did you get any of that out of what i just said? I said the people you were linking to where openly lying about what was in the scientific paper not that the scientific paper was lying about there findings.

Also they did not say anything about how this changes the way we think about evolution. If anything Schweitzer findings solidified the theory of birds being an ancestor of some dinosaurs. This is shown in his paper that the parts of the amino acids and hemoglobin they were able to recover were very similar to that of modern day ostriches. This study did not attempt to explain HOW the tissue was preserved only that they were attempting to gather DNA and other things from the bone due to it being preserved in a unique way. They do the honest thing and say they don't know why it was preserved in such a way but give a few reasons why it might be the case and what would have to be found to prove it to be true. They NEVER say that fossilization may not occur in the way it does. They say that a certain type of fossilization may have occurred due to the unique environment not that theories of fossilization due to minerals is wrong.

If this bone was the norm there would be dinosaur bones all over the place with soft tissue cores. But there isn't this is the only bones i have been able to find that are referenced anywhere that have this special property. They might not know why that is the case but that was not the point of the study and to quote them as if that was the purpose of the paper is dishonest on the authors part of those articles you and i have linked.

[PaulConventionWV]

How was my post misleading? Do you know the exact numbers of creationists who believe that Satan put the dinosaur fossils in the ground? That is absolutely a total fallacy to claim that "there is more evidence to explain the creationist account of dinosaurs than there is for the evolutionists". If God created the dinosaurs, and according to the Bible, everything He made "was good", why did He wipe them out?



The universe is 13.7 billion years old. But you believe it is only 6,000 years old, correct? How do come to such conclusions?




Where in the world did you get that explanation for all the poop in the boat?

12 tons of poop a day times 180 days is a lot of poop, and it supposedly sat at the bottom of the ark and it did not affect Noah and his family, let alone not kill all the animals in the ark? There was no windows open; God shut the ark door and all its windows. The amount of methane gas would have been lethal. 12 tons times 180 is 2,160 tons of poop. All that poop would have sunk the ark.

No, it would not have. You are making completely baseless claims. How did you come to the conclusion that there were no windows? I don't see why not. That would answer your concerns about ventilation. The poop was taken care of through very simple contraptions that are non-mechanical and could have easily been taken care of by Noah and his family.

[PaulConventionWV]

How was my post misleading? Do you know the exact numbers of creationists who believe that Satan put the dinosaur fossils in the ground? That is absolutely a total fallacy to claim that "there is more evidence to explain the creationist account of dinosaurs than there is for the evolutionists". If God created the dinosaurs, and according to the Bible, everything He made "was good", why did He wipe them out?



The universe is 13.7 billion years old. But you believe it is only 6,000 years old, correct? How do come to such conclusions?




Where in the world did you get that explanation for all the poop in the boat?

12 tons of poop a day times 180 days is a lot of poop, and it supposedly sat at the bottom of the ark and it did not affect Noah and his family, let alone not kill all the animals in the ark? There was no windows open; God shut the ark door and all its windows. The amount of methane gas would have been lethal. 12 tons times 180 is 2,160 tons of poop. All that poop would have sunk the ark.

To your first question. No, I don't know the exact numbers and neither do you, so stop misleading people by suggesting that is the only explanation creationists can offer.

No, I do not "believe" something contrary to the truth, like you worded it. The universe simply is not 13.7 billion years old. Here are a bunch of reasons why the universe is not 13.7 billion years old as you assert.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

[Ranger29860]

No, it would not have. You are making completely baseless claims. How did you come to the conclusion that there were no windows? I don't see why not. That would answer your concerns about ventilation. The poop was taken care of through very simple contraptions that are non-mechanical and could have easily been taken care of by Noah and his family.

I am actually not being sarcastic in what i am about to say.

If you are willing to take the leap that GOD controlled all these animals and got them on the boat and caused a worldwide flood, why not take the stance that god kept the animals from pooping or made it disappear?

[Ranger29860]

To your first question. No, I don't know the exact numbers and neither do you, so stop misleading people by suggesting that is the only explanation creationists can offer.

No, I do not "believe" something contrary to the truth, like you worded it. The universe simply is not 13.7 billion years old. Here are a bunch of reasons why the universe is not 13.7 billion years old as you assert.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp


Look in the sky at night there you go. Also please post something other from answers in genesis.

Ok i just read that article.

"Evolutionists call this “the winding-up dilemma,” which they have known about for fifty years. "

REALLY? how many times do i have to explain what evolution is? If they are willing to make that lie why should i believe anything on that site.
That is why i do not like answers in genesis as a reference due to that kind of dishonesty being prevalent throughout the entire site.

[PaulConventionWV]

I am actually not being sarcastic in what i am about to say.

If you are willing to take the leap that GOD controlled all these animals and got them on the boat and caused a worldwide flood, why not take the stance that god kept the animals from pooping or made it disappear?

Miracles are not always necessary. We have lives for a reason. They are supposed to be hard to deal with, and we are supposed to deal with. God does not meddle unnecessarily. If you're going to ask me when it is necessary, I am going to say I don't know. Only God knows that. It does not matter what "position" I take. It matters what God wants to do, and we can't order Him around and say "you should have done this or that."

[PaulConventionWV]

Look in the sky at night there you go. Also please post something other from answers in genesis.

Ok i just read that article.

"Evolutionists call this “the winding-up dilemma,” which they have known about for fifty years. "

REALLY? how many times do i have to explain what evolution is? If they are willing to make that lie why should i believe anything on that site.
That is why i do not like answers in genesis as a reference due to that kind of dishonesty being prevalent throughout the entire site.

What do you mean there you go? Am I supposed to believe the Universe is billions of years old because "it looks that way." Is that your irrefutable proof? The evidence I posted from answersingenesis is completely valid. If you can't refute it, then don't tell me to find you a different source because that one is perfectly valid.

[Ranger29860]

What do you mean there you go? Am I supposed to believe the Universe is billions of years old because "it looks that way." Is that your irrefutable proof? The evidence I posted from answersingenesis is completely valid. If you can't refute it, then don't tell me to find you a different source because that one is perfectly valid.

I would assume you do a little critical thinking when it comes to what i meant by look at the sky. Light travels at a set speed except under extreme gravitation forces. We are able to determine the distance of stars in other galaxies by using a control star that we know the brightness of and determine the distance based on fluctuation of light from these stars. That is where the 13-14.8 billion date comes from it has a hell of lot more valid then god done it 6k years since there is both math and testable observation attached to the measurements.

As for your source again they openly misrepresent scientific papers and use terms like evolutionist in a dishonest way. They simply LIE about the meaning of these words so why should i believe anything they say?

[Ranger29860]

Ok i am going to pick apart the article you referenced to prove a point this might take a minute ill just edit this post so check back to this post.

*Edit*

1. This can not be refuted since scientist take the correct stant of we don't know yet. This is not "PROOF" of a young universe though.

2.Here is the site they reference for this "PROOF" http://www.creationicc.org/ ...... here is the publisher of the paper itself http://www.csfpittsburgh.org/ this is not a peer reviewed paper in the slightest bit.

3. Finaly an actual peer reviewed paper... But that paper and the secondary reference 5 does not say what the article is claiming it is actualy what they are arguing against. There is no evidence from a peer reviewed paper on there position just another paper from "http://www.creationresearch.org/. " and the journal is creation research society books. it is reference #4

4. The same thing applies to point 4 they simply show papers with number that they use to justifie what they are saying without any link to any peer reviewed paper of there claim having any validity.

5. Again facts that are not disputed that they are presenting and distorting then the one paper they reference in support of this is again from http://www.creationicc.org/. which is not a peer reviewed paper.

I am going to go ahead post this and continue the rest next. You can see where this is going though. I can do this with almost any article on http://www.answersingenesis.org because they are consistently dishonest in the way they present there "facts"

[Dr.3D]

I would assume you do a little critical thinking when it comes to what i meant by look at the sky. Light travels at a set speed except under extreme gravitation forces. We are able to determine the distance of stars in other galaxies by using a control star that we know the brightness of and determine the distance based on fluctuation of light from these stars. That is where the 13-14.8 billion date comes from it has a hell of lot more valid then god done it 6k years since there is both math and testable observation attached to the measurements.

As for your source again they openly misrepresent scientific papers and use terms like evolutionist in a dishonest way. They simply LIE about the meaning of these words so why should i believe anything they say?

Proves nothing. Time is relative to the observer and doesn't pass at the same speed throughout the universe.
Since we have no benchmark to determine if the passage of time is linear, we have no way to determine if time has sped up or slowed down.

[YumYum]

No, it would not have. You are making completely baseless claims. How did you come to the conclusion that there were no windows? I don't see why not. That would answer your concerns about ventilation. The poop was taken care of through very simple contraptions that are non-mechanical and could have easily been taken care of by Noah and his family.

Remember, it rained for forty days and forty nights? The ark was sealed shut by God, with no windows open. The Bible says at Genesis 7:16 regarding Noah and the ark: "Then the Lord shut him in." It was forty days later that Noah opened the window to let out a raven, then a dove. Genesis 8:6 says "After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark..."

Even if a window had been opened during the voyage, it would not have been enough to provide proper ventilation. I have two male goats who I let run free, and the stink from their body odor alone is enough to gag a maggot. Tens of thousands of animals, pooping, peeing, sweating, with horrible odors, surely God could have come up with something more humane. This ark would have been nothing more than a floating septic tank.

[TheViper]

PaulConventionVW, Mary Schweitzer is the scientist that discovered the dinosaur bone in question and she is a devout Christian who is angered at the young creationists using her find as proof of their theory. She reasons that they are wrong because the geological structures the bone was found in, the bone itself and other factors were dated as being 68 million years old. The presence of a few proteins doesn't change the fact the fossil was dated to be 68 million years old. All it suggests is that we don't know everything about soft tissue decay in certain extreme circumstances.

This goes back to the null hypothesis I was referring to before. Just because one factor in a scientific theory is wrong doesn't make God a default answer. It doesn't mean it's not either, but you can't just say proteins were found in a dinosaur bone and therefore young Earth creationism is correct. You have to first rule out all other possibilities which has not yet been done and then correlate it with other factors that would refute the correlating evidence of the dinosaur find to begin with (the fact the geological structure and bone itself were 68 million years old).


Here is a Smithsonian article on the dinosaur bone. And please don't claim scientific bias without accepting theistic bias for answersingenesis.org too.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html?c=y&page=1

[Ranger29860]

Ok i am going to do this a diffrent way i am going to list all refrences from peer reviewed papers and then the ones from non peer reviewed papers.


Peer reviewed

D. Zaritsky, H-W. Rix, and M. Rieke, Inner spiral structure of the galaxy M51, Nature 364:313–315 (July 22, 1993).

Whipple, F. L., Background of modern comet theory, Nature 263:15–19 (2 September 1976). Levison, H. F. et al. See also: The mass disruption of Oort Cloud comets, Science 296:2212–2215 (21 June 2002).

Milliman, John D. and James P. M. Syvitski, Geomorphic/tectonic control of sediment discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers, The Journal of Geology, vol. 100, pp. 525–544 (1992).

Hay, W. W., et al., Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of sediment subduction, Journal of Geophysical Research, 93(B12):14,933–14,940 (10 December 1988).

Meybeck, M., Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans, Revue de Géologie Dynamique et de Géographie Physique 21(3):215 (1979).

Sayles, F. L. and P. C. Mangelsdorf, Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 43:767–779 (1979).

Coe, R. S., M. Prévot, and P. Camps, New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal, Nature 374:687–92 (20 April 1995).

Gibbons A., Calibrating the mitochondrial clock, Science 279:28–29 (2 January 1998).

Cherfas, J., Ancient DNA: still busy after death, Science 253:1354–1356 (20 September 1991). Cano, R. J., H. N. Poinar, N. J. Pieniazek, A. Acra, and G. O. Poinar, Jr. Amplification and sequencing of DNA from a 120-135-million-year-old weevil, Nature 363:536–8 (10 June 1993). Krings, M., A. Stone, R. W. Schmitz, H. Krainitzki,
M. Stoneking, and S. Pääbo, Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans, Cell 90:19–30 (Jul 11, 1997). Lindahl, T, Unlocking nature’s ancient secrets, Nature 413:358–359 (27 September 2001).

Vreeland, R. H.,W. D. Rosenzweig, and D. W. Powers, Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halotolerant bacterium from a primary salt crystal, Nature 407:897–900 (19 October 2000).

Schweitzer, M., J. L. Wittmeyer, J. R. Horner, and J. K. Toporski, Soft-Tissue vessels and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex, Science 207:1952–1955 (25 March 2005).

Gentry, R. V., Radioactive halos, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23:347–362 (1973).

Gentry, R. V. , W. H. Christie, D. H. Smith, J. F. Emery, S. A. Reynolds, R. Walker, S. S. Christy, and P. A. Gentry, Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification, Science 194:315–318 (15 October 1976).

Gentry, R. V., Radiohalos in a radiochronological and cosmological perspective, Science 184:62–66 (5 April 1974).

Deevey, E. S., The human population, Scientific American 203:194–204 (September 1960).

Now here is the non published papers

Davies, K., Distribution of supernova remnants in the galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1994), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 175–184, order from http://www.creationicc.org/.

Steidl, P. F., Planets, comets, and asteroids, Design and Origins in Astronomy, pp. 73-106, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983), order from http://www.creationresearch.org/.

Austin, S. A. and D. R. Humphreys, The sea’s missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 17–33, order from http://www.creationicc.org/.

Nevins, S., [Austin, S. A.], Evolution: the oceans say no!, Impact No. 8 (Nov. 1973) Institute for Creation Research.

Humphreys, D. R., The earth’s magnetic field is still losing energy, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 39(1):3–13, June 2002. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm.

Humphreys, D. R., Reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the Genesis flood, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 113–126, out of print but contact http://www.creationicc.org/ for help in locating copies.

Humphreys, D. R., Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the flood, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 129–142, order from http://www.creationicc.org/.

Austin, S. A. and J. D. Morris, Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 3–15, out of print, contact http://www.creationicc.org/ for help in locating copies.

Snelling, A. A. and M. H. Armitage, Radiohalos—a tale of three granitic plutons, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (2003), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 243–267, order from http://www.creationicc.org/.

Humphreys, D. R, et al., Helium diffusion age of 6,000 years supports accelerated nuclear decay, Creation Research Society Quarterly 41(1):1–16 (June 2004). See archived article on following page of the CRS website: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm.

Baumgardner, J. R., et al., Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-flood model, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (2003), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 127–142. Archived at http://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html.

Dritt, J. O., Man’s earliest beginnings: discrepancies in evolutionary timetables, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 73–78, order from http://www.creationicc.org/.




Now you should definitely see a pattern. The non peer reviewed stuff is what they are referencing to prove there point. I wonder if you can see the pattern that is clear as day of what they did?

[PaulConventionWV]

I would assume you do a little critical thinking when it comes to what i meant by look at the sky. Light travels at a set speed except under extreme gravitation forces. We are able to determine the distance of stars in other galaxies by using a control star that we know the brightness of and determine the distance based on fluctuation of light from these stars. That is where the 13-14.8 billion date comes from it has a hell of lot more valid then god done it 6k years since there is both math and testable observation attached to the measurements.

As for your source again they openly misrepresent scientific papers and use terms like evolutionist in a dishonest way. They simply LIE about the meaning of these words so why should i believe anything they say?

Therein lies your answer.

[Slutter McGee]

There are no "facts" in science, only laws, theories and hypotheses.

semantic bullshit. It happened. Its a fact. Regardless of what science wants to call it.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[PaulConventionWV]

PaulConventionVW, Mary Schweitzer is the scientist that discovered the dinosaur bone in question and she is a devout Christian who is angered at the young creationists using her find as proof of their theory. She reasons that they are wrong because the geological structures the bone was found in, the bone itself and other factors were dated as being 68 million years old. The presence of a few proteins doesn't change the fact the fossil was dated to be 68 million years old. All it suggests is that we don't know everything about soft tissue decay in certain extreme circumstances.

This goes back to the null hypothesis I was referring to before. Just because one factor in a scientific theory is wrong doesn't make God a default answer. It doesn't mean it's not either, but you can't just say proteins were found in a dinosaur bone and therefore young Earth creationism is correct. You have to first rule out all other possibilities which has not yet been done and then correlate it with other factors that would refute the correlating evidence of the dinosaur find to begin with (the fact the geological structure and bone itself were 68 million years old).


Here is a Smithsonian article on the dinosaur bone. And please don't claim scientific bias without accepting theistic bias for answersingenesis.org too.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html?c=y&page=1

They probably dated it using Potassium Argon dating. If they used carbon dating, then they are going to get a wrong date because that is only reliable up to about 5000 years.

http://creation.com/how-potassium-argon-dating-works

And I never said God was a default answer. You are the one who is assuming it's a black and white between those two. I am saying there are problems with the evolution hypothesis. That much should be indisputable.

[heavenlyboy34]

semantic bullshit. It happened. Its a fact. Regardless of what science wants to call it.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee
http://roflmouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/funny-animal-pictures-kitty-lol1.jpg

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

There are many possibilities that abound. Once you accept that all the rules of science can be broken then the possibilities are endless.

Electric Universe

:rolleyes:

I gotta hear this one. How is the electrical model of the Universe somehow breaking the 'rules of science'? If so..then how the FUCK is it that NASA keep finding Birkeland Currents every goddamn place they look?



Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus

April 20, 2011
PASADENA, Calif. -- NASA is releasing the first images and sounds of an electrical connection between Saturn and one of its moons, Enceladus. The data collected by the agency's Cassini spacecraft enable scientists to improve their understanding of the complex web of interaction between the planet and its numerous moons. The results of the data analysis are published in the journals Nature
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-120


NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries about Northern Lights

Dec. 11, 2007: NASA's fleet of THEMIS spacecraft, launched less than 8 months ago, has made three important discoveries about spectacular eruptions of Northern Lights called "substorms" and the source of their power. The discoveries include giant magnetic ropes that connect Earth's upper atmosphere to the Sun and explosions in the outskirts of Earth's magnetic field.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis/

And just to refresh your memory (if you failed to think about this):


In conclusion, all magnetic fields encountered in nature are generated by circulating currents. There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits. In the former, case the currents which generate the fields circulate on the atomic scale, whereas, in the latter case, the currents circulate on a macroscopic scale (i.e., the scale of the circuit).
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node77.html

The Standard Model of the Universe (Gravity-only) has been falsified (as per Popper). The weight of observation evidence keeps piling up against it and no amount of deflection is going to save it. It is a dying paradigm and will go the way of the Ptolemaic Epicycles.

[Ranger29860]

Therein lies your answer.

So there are black-holes between every single galaxy?

[Dr.3D]

Seems there is a tremendous number of "facts" dependent on the linear passage of time. As I stated earlier, the passage of time can not be reliably used as an argument or to arrive as some kind of fact concerning this discussion.

Here is a very good video showing why what I have just said is true.

Dr.Gerald Schroeder Genesis & The Big Bang Theory (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2846284361709250986)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2846284361709250986

[Ranger29860]

Seems there is a tremendous number of "facts" dependent on the linear passage of time. As I stated earlier, the passage of time can not be reliably used as an argument or to arrive as some kind of fact concerning this discussion.

Here is a very good video showing why what I have just said is true.

Dr.Gerald Schroeder Genesis & The Big Bang Theory (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2846284361709250986)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2846284361709250986


see you in 49 minutes :P

[Ranger29860]

I am only about half way through i am jsut wondering does he actually disagree with 13.5-15 billion years? Cause so far this seems like a theological interpretation.

*edit*
Ok i see where he is going with this now and i think i know what you are getting at. I have no problem with people who want to believe what this guy believes. His world view depends on the belief that GOD is existent outside of our current view of time and the bible is written to reflect that. And you know what go ahead and believe that, that is fine he at least accepts scientific discoveries such as evolution. That is not the kind of people i get in arguments i get mad at the people that 6 days == 6 days our time. And that dinosaurs roamed with humans.

I don't agree with the premise behind it due to the belief in the god part but at least is not denying scientific discoveries.

*edit 2*

first off let me thank you for actual posting something from a credible source. This is a very good way to look at time relative to our current position. And you know what i can not refute the science behind what he is saying this is not my field and i respect his interpretation of the science. I am actually buying his book as we speak. That being said i will have to do more research and look at the evidence myself. But as of right now that is the single best refutal i have seen posted on this website in the 4 years.

This does not mean i am saying the bible is correct or that he is but it is a credible source that warrant further investigation my part.

This does not refute evolution though which is what the majority of my argument has been about. My knowledge is mostly based in evolutionary biology not cosmetology. In the end this is still his interpretation and others of the bible and there are a lot of numbers being thrown around that i am going to do my best to confirm. Again this is not an admittance of defeat :P but a pat on the back for you for actually showing something other than answer's in genesis.

To every person here who likes to say god done it and link answers in genesis takes this as an example of how to have an actual conversation based in science and not in magic.

[PaulConventionWV]

Remember, it rained for forty days and forty nights? The ark was sealed shut by God, with no windows open. The Bible says at Genesis 7:16 regarding Noah and the ark: "Then the Lord shut him in." It was forty days later that Noah opened the window to let out a raven, then a dove. Genesis 8:6 says "After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark..."

Even if a window had been opened during the voyage, it would not have been enough to provide proper ventilation. I have two male goats who I let run free, and the stink from their body odor alone is enough to gag a maggot. Tens of thousands of animals, pooping, peeing, sweating, with horrible odors, surely God could have come up with something more humane. This ark would have been nothing more than a floating septic tank.

You're still making baseless claims, but I have to give you credit for using your imagination! The fact that the Lord shut the door doesn't mean that there were no windows.

[PaulConventionWV]

So there are black-holes between every single galaxy?

No, but there are planets.

I thought you would use a little critical thinking when I said that. ;)

[PaulConventionWV]

I am only about half way through i am jsut wondering does he actually disagree with 13.5-15 billion years? Cause so far this seems like a theological interpretation.

*edit*
Ok i see where he is going with this now and i think i know what you are getting at. I have no problem with people who want to believe what this guy believes. His world view depends on the belief that GOD is existent outside of our current view of time and the bible is written to reflect that. And you know what go ahead and believe that, that is fine he at least accepts scientific discoveries such as evolution. That is not the kind of people i get in arguments i get mad at the people that 6 days == 6 days our time. And that dinosaurs roamed with humans.

I don't agree with the premise behind it due to the belief in the god part but at least is not denying scientific discoveries.

*edit 2*

first off let me thank you for actual posting something from a credible source. This is a very good way to look at time relative to our current position. And you know what i can not refute the science behind what he is saying this is not my field and i respect his interpretation of the science. I am actually buying his book as we speak. That being said i will have to do more research and look at the evidence myself. But as of right now that is the single best refutal i have seen posted on this website in the 4 years.

This does not mean i am saying the bible is correct or that he is but it is a credible source that warrant further investigation my part.

This does not refute evolution though which is what the majority of my argument has been about. My knowledge is mostly based in evolutionary biology not cosmetology. In the end this is still his interpretation and others of the bible and there are a lot of numbers being thrown around that i am going to do my best to confirm. Again this is not an admittance of defeat :P but a pat on the back for you for actually showing something other than answer's in genesis.

To every person here who likes to say god done it and link answers in genesis takes this as an example of how to have an actual conversation based in science and not in magic.

Unless you can refute the evidence I gave you that the universe is not billions of years old, then you have no basis for saying I can't link to answersingenesis. They have perfectly good points and it's all based on science, not just "God done it."

What you're basically saying is that I have to agree with you that the universe is billions of years old before I can have a "scientific" discussion. However, there is lots of good scientific evidence that it is not, so I think we can have a scientific discussion without me agreeing to your premises first.

[Dr.3D]

I am only about half way through i am jsut wondering does he actually disagree with 13.5-15 billion years? Cause so far this seems like a theological interpretation.

*edit*
Ok i see where he is going with this now and i think i know what you are getting at. I have no problem with people who want to believe what this guy believes. His world view depends on the belief that GOD is existent outside of our current view of time and the bible is written to reflect that. And you know what go ahead and believe that, that is fine he at least accepts scientific discoveries such as evolution. That is not the kind of people i get in arguments i get mad at the people that 6 days == 6 days our time. And that dinosaurs roamed with humans.

I don't agree with the premise behind it due to the belief in the god part but at least is not denying scientific discoveries.

*edit 2*

first off let me thank you for actual posting something from a credible source. This is a very good way to look at time relative to our current position. And you know what i can not refute the science behind what he is saying this is not my field and i respect his interpretation of the science. I am actually buying his book as we speak. That being said i will have to do more research and look at the evidence myself. But as of right now that is the single best refutal i have seen posted on this website in the 4 years.

This does not mean i am saying the bible is correct or that he is but it is a credible source that warrant further investigation my part.

This does not refute evolution though which is what the majority of my argument has been about. My knowledge is mostly based in evolutionary biology not cosmetology. In the end this is still his interpretation and others of the bible and there are a lot of numbers being thrown around that i am going to do my best to confirm. Again this is not an admittance of defeat :P but a pat on the back for you for actually showing something other than answer's in genesis.

To every person here who likes to say god done it and link answers in genesis takes this as an example of how to have an actual conversation based in science and not in magic.

I commend you for actually taking the time to view and comprehend the video. I've posted a link to it on these forums before and I doubt anybody took the time to view it.

Thanks for checking it out and buying his book. LOL, I just bought a copy of it myself. I especially like where he demonstrates the timeline.

First 24 hours of day one = 8 billion years by our time measurement.
Second 24 hours, day two = 4 billion years by our time measurement.
Third 24 hours, day three = 2 billion years by our time measurement.
Fourth 24 hours, day four = 1 billion years by our time measurement.
Fifth 24 hours, day five = 0.5 billion years by our time measurement.
Sixth 24 hours, day six = 0.25 billion years by our time measurement.

So altogether, it took around 16 billion of our years for those 6, twenty four hour days to pass.

I'll bet some people will read this post and not understand what I am talking about. Well, because you viewed the video, at least you do. :)

[wowrevolution]

:rolleyes:

I gotta hear this one. How is the electrical model of the Universe somehow breaking the 'rules of science'? If so..then how the FUCK is it that NASA keep finding Birkeland Currents every goddamn place they look?



http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-120


http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis/

And just to refresh your memory (if you failed to think about this):


http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node77.html

The Standard Model of the Universe (Gravity-only) has been falsified (as per Popper). The weight of observation evidence keeps piling up against it and no amount of deflection is going to save it. It is a dying paradigm and will go the way of the Ptolemaic Epicycles.

You misinterpret. I agree completely. I consider it my duty to study the works of thunderbolts, Alfven, Birkeland, Langmuir, arp, perratt et al.

Edit: to elaborate -breaking the rules of science perhaps better expressed as breaking free the bonds of mainstream science interpretation.

What are your feeling of plate tectonics vs. Expanding earth

[YumYum]

You're still making baseless claims, but I have to give you credit for using your imagination! The fact that the Lord shut the door doesn't mean that there were no windows.

The Bible has many stories that are baseless claims. I have talked in length with the head of the biology department at the University that I attended on the subject of evolution. He is a Catholic, and he believes in God. He also teaches an advanced course on evolution. He is an expert on the subject and he explained to me many "facts" about evolution. I too, believed at one time in creationism as outlined in Genesis. But the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming, whereas the evidence supporting creation is flimsy at best. I do have questions though regarding the evolution of man. Is it possible that God may have had a hand in changing man's DNA to make him more intelligent? The scripture says "Let's make man in our image", not "let's make man", which could indicate that man already existed in a lessor form.

This is all speculation, and that is all we can do is speculate. Nobody knows how everything happened, because none of us were there. But, I would encourage you to do a critical study of the Bible. It is not very encouraging to find out that a book we cherish as the "word of God" has so many problems, but once a person is free from the brainwashing that has been indoctrinated into us by the churches, we are free to stretch our minds and explore the unlimited amount of "what ifs". That is true liberty and freedom.

[wowrevolution]

After reading the posts here I am going to also posit that if you believe in the big bang theory then you are a creationist as well. Me personally, I make no distinction between those who believe the universe is 6000 years and those who believe it is 14billion.

To expand on this, I will defang big bang proponents by stating that red shift is an intrinsic phenomenon of cosmic plasma and that big bang proponents are perpetrating a verifiable fraud by stating that wmap confirms big bang theory.

Electro-fractal mathematics is the greatest tool we have in deciphering nature.

Pantheistically, God is an integrated aspect of nature and us not a separate being outside. God and the universe are an integrated, inseparable, and eternal being.

Electrical studies have been the patriotic study of nature since Franklin flew his kite.

[wowrevolution]

So there are black-holes between every single galaxy?
Dense plasma focus or plasmoid

Google or YouTube black hole plasmoid

[Ranger29860]

After reading the posts here I am going to also posit that if you believe in the big bang theory then you are a creationist as well. Me personally, I make no distinction between those who believe the universe is 6000 years and those who believe it is 14billion.

To expand on this, I will defang big bang proponents by stating that red shift is an intrinsic phenomenon of cosmic plasma and that big bang proponents are perpetrating a verifiable fraud by stating that wmap confirms big bang theory.

Electro-fractal mathematics is the greatest tool we have in deciphering nature.

Pantheistically, God is an integrated aspect of nature and us not a separate being outside. God and the universe are an integrated, inseparable, and eternal being.

Electrical studies have been the patriotic study of nature since Franklin flew his kite.

I will admit past the first sentence everything you said is beyond my knowledge and without links i really can't confirm anything your saying. That being said this discussion originally started about evolution not the big bang. The big bang though a valid theory at the time is one that is a little harder to confirm than evolution.

What i see this as is a moving of the goal post. This happens in a good bit of the discussions i have with creationist. It starts on evolution (which is what i have been arguing about, with the exception of my post in regards to DR, 3D) and then when the arguments against evolution fail or are not presented the argument of where did the universe come from start. This line of thinking is a dishonest one since in science a lack of knowledge does not automatically get filled with god or any baseless theory someone can come up with. The big bang was and still is a decent theory but it has never been as concrete as evolution due to the untestable nature of it until recently in the last century. And now with the evidence of red shift occurring and the universe expanding at a faster and faster rate (something that does at first glance challenge the big bang theory) new competing theories are now coming forward (multiverses, multiple big bangs, evolution of universes and so on). Now scientist are honest about this and admit mistakes and rejoice in the discovery of new information. When a new theory comes out some sort of evidence that can be tested must be accompanying the findings in order for any peer review paper to even look at it.

This is the complete opposite of what i see coming from creationist there seems to be be the god of the gaps everywhere i turn in these arguments. There is nothing wrong with saying i do not know something there is everything wrong with saying i know for sure based on a book.

[Ranger29860]

Dense plasma focus or plasmoid

Google or YouTube black hole plasmoid

I am having a real problem finding anything based on what your saying, I either find a few articles on the secretion of plasmids ejecting from a black hole or a device called a DRM. Also searching no peer reviewed articles i am finding discuss anything between the galaxies other than theories of dark mater, wimps, sparticles. No mention of plasma being found are being confirmed between galaxies. The answers i am seeing is we do not know yet.

[TheViper]

What are your feeling of plate tectonics vs. Expanding earth

Too many holes in the Expanding Earth theory at this time. There are 3 main theories on Expanding Earth but each are out of sync with other major theories. For example, 1 of the theories suggests the mass of Earth is increasing but that would require the gravitational force to increase as well which doesn't jive well with a lot of things.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

:facepalm

This article is horrible. Attacking evolution by linking it with Hitler and Marx is a joke. Should we attack Christianity because the Spanish Inquisitors were Christians?

The scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It has even been suggested that evolution has more evidence than germ theory.

The scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming? As science isn't submissive to the philosophy of science which is supposed to control it, how can such an argument even be put forth?

[TheViper]

The scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming? As science isn't submissive to the philosophy of science which is supposed to control it, how can such an argument even be put forth?

Imagine evidence as a weight. The more peer accepted the evidence, the heavier the weight. Compared to the evidence against evolutionary theories, the weight is overwhelming. That's how it is overwhelming. It is voluminous and heavily accepted by the scientific community.

[Krugerrand]

Imagine evidence as a weight. The more peer accepted the evidence, the heavier the weight. Compared to the evidence against evolutionary theories, the weight is overwhelming. That's how it is overwhelming. It is voluminous and heavily accepted by the scientific community.

And here, I always thought the scientific method involved testing and being able to reproduce results. I didn't realize it was peer acceptance. I guess that makes global warming real, too then. To hell with the scientific method.

[heavenlyboy34]

Imagine evidence as a weight. The more peer accepted the evidence, the heavier the weight. Compared to the evidence against evolutionary theories, the weight is overwhelming. That's how it is overwhelming. It is voluminous and heavily accepted by the scientific community.
The problem here is that evidence is not like a weight. Not all evidence is good, and some evidence is much better than other evidence. Volume does not necessarily equal quality or accuracy.

[TheViper]

And here, I always thought the scientific method involved testing and being able to reproduce results. I didn't realize it was peer acceptance. I guess that makes global warming real, too then. To hell with the scientific method.
By using the word "evidence", I already implied it was a tested.

The problem here is that evidence is not like a weight. Not all evidence is good, and some evidence is much better than other evidence. Volume does not necessarily equal quality or accuracy.
Certainly true and I even started typing something similar in my post but felt I was getting off track. Probably should have left it.

Keep in mind that while the evidence for evolution could be bad, the evidence against can also be bad. Because of this potential for fallacy and the fact that evolution evidence is widely accepted as being good, quality evidence, it can be considered as 'overwhelming' evidence.

I mean if we just going to sit here and go round and round in circles about which evidence is good evidence and which evidence is bad evidence for or against X theory, then we're never going to get anywhere. Are you suggesting that we ignore the volume, the peer acceptance and the general good quality of evolutionary evidence and give equal weighting to the evidence supporting ID, creationism or something else that has far less volume of evidence, less peer acceptance and lower quality evidence?

[heavenlyboy34]

By using the word "evidence", I already implied it was a tested.

Certainly true and I even started typing something similar in my post but felt I was getting off track. Probably should have left it.

Keep in mind that while the evidence for evolution could be bad, the evidence against can also be bad. Because of this potential for fallacy and the fact that evolution evidence is widely accepted as being good, quality evidence, it can be considered as 'overwhelming' evidence.

I mean if we just going to sit here and go round and round in circles about which evidence is good evidence and which evidence is bad evidence for or against X theory, then we're never going to get anywhere. Are you suggesting that we ignore the volume, the peer acceptance and the general good quality of evolutionary evidence and give equal weighting to the evidence supporting ID, creationism or something else that has far less volume of evidence, less peer acceptance and lower quality evidence?

I'm suggesting that all these theories (ID, evolution, etc), are faith-based and irrational. You can believe what you want, but that won't make it "fact".

"Evolution is just a fairy tale for grown-ups". - Louis Bounoure, biologist and zoologist.

As I pointed out earlier, science relies on the fallacy of asserting the consequent. This is no more "logical" than the theist position.

[Sola_Fide]

The problem here is that evidence is not like a weight. Not all evidence is good, and some evidence is much better than other evidence. Volume does not necessarily equal quality or accuracy.

Yes. Not only that, but what one accepts as "evidence" is really only a reflection of their fundamental presuppositions.

For instance, a Darwinist cannot accept the evidence of massive fossilized sea beds as evidence for a worldwide flood. A Darwinist wouldn't accept the evidence of petrified trees standing up through "ages" of rock layers because it doesn't fit their presuppositions...it doesn't fit their paradigm.

Thomas Kuhn wrote The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions and he argued that paradigms must change before evidence is ever taken as evidence.

There is no such thing as "brute" facts, or facts that are unrelated to a person's fundamental presuppositions. What one even accepts as "evidence" is governed by his worldview.


This is why it doesn't surprise me in the least that the atheists don't accept the evidences for creation. It is a completely different paradigm.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

By using the word "evidence", I already implied it was a tested.

Certainly true and I even started typing something similar in my post but felt I was getting off track. Probably should have left it.

Keep in mind that while the evidence for evolution could be bad, the evidence against can also be bad. Because of this potential for fallacy and the fact that evolution evidence is widely accepted as being good, quality evidence, it can be considered as 'overwhelming' evidence.

I mean if we just going to sit here and go round and round in circles about which evidence is good evidence and which evidence is bad evidence for or against X theory, then we're never going to get anywhere. Are you suggesting that we ignore the volume, the peer acceptance and the general good quality of evolutionary evidence and give equal weighting to the evidence supporting ID, creationism or something else that has far less volume of evidence, less peer acceptance and lower quality evidence?

If the best rational science can rank in the order of things is under the authority of an irrational government, then the best science can be is to confess that, in serving mankind, this is the best it can possibly be.
In the end, in regards to the Kennedy assassination, the scientific observations of seven qualified doctors were ignored in favor of an irrational opinion based on legal precedence in matters concerning what is and what is not admissible in affairs to be tried in either a criminal court or in a civil one.
By using this tactic of jockeying back and forth from the use of rational scientific evidence to that of irrational legal precedence, the Warren Commission was able to write volumes of literary fiction.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Yes. Not only that, but what one accepts as "evidence" is really only a reflection of their fundamental presuppositions.

For instance, a Darwinist cannot accept the evidence of massive fossilized sea beds as evidence for a worldwide flood. A Darwinist wouldn't accept the evidence of petrified trees standing up through "ages" of rock layers because it doesn't fit their presuppositions...it doesn't fit their paradigm.

Thomas Kuhn wrote The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions and he argued that paradigms must change before evidence is ever taken as evidence.

There is no such thing as "brute" facts, or facts that are unrelated to a person's fundamental presuppositions. What one even accepts as "evidence" is governed by his worldview.


This is why it doesn't surprise me in the least that the atheists don't accept the evidences for creation. It is a completely different paradigm.

If the universe is a garden in the Book of Genesis, any wilderness would be contained within the overall design of it. This isn't a matter of reason, but faith. To argue just the opposite that gardens exist within an overall wilderness can never be substantiated without a finite environment amounting to the erection of a wall in space with nothing on the other side of it.

When he was blinded, the apostle Paul didn't lose his sight. He was made blind by scales being placed over his eyes. When the scales fell off, he regained his sight. What percentage of material goes into constructing the multiple eyes of a common housefly? When we take feeling into account, how much of our being is made up of sense organs (nerves)?

The shell is placed around the seed or the egg to limit life, put there to express different qualities when eternal life breaks out of them.

The earth is an incubator for endless variations because its shape limits the quantity of what life can be. Add to it that which can't be destroyed and then witness how His Glory manages to work out the problem. Out of this comes a miracle.

Miracle: To create and manage life, God didn't do anything. Instead, he withered Himself away. In the process, life came forth to raise Him up. In other words, God Willed His complete faith into mankind shedding His blood for them and breaking Himself into little pieces of bread. Out of this came a marriage of authority. While on one side a person limits their authority by discipline, on the other a person expresses their authority by discipline.

[Ranger29860]

"Evolution is just a fairy tale for grown-ups". - Louis Bounoure, biologist and zoologist.



That is quote mined good job!

*edit*
hell after further review its not even quote mined its actually 2 different people's words smashed together.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I am having a real problem finding anything based on what your saying, I either find a few articles on the secretion of plasmids ejecting from a black hole or a device called a DRM. Also searching no peer reviewed articles i am finding discuss anything between the galaxies other than theories of dark mater, wimps, sparticles. No mention of plasma being found are being confirmed between galaxies. The answers i am seeing is we do not know yet.

Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Neutron Stars and The Expanding Universe are all based on nonsense. Nonsense that cannot be Falsified (as per Popper) and therefore NOT science. The first 3 cannot be observed, only inferred. That puts them in the same realm as unicorns, fairies and other supernatural drek. Neutron Stars violate The Island of Stability rule of Nuclear Chemistry. The last is based on the first three and is therefore bullshit too.

[SamuraisWisdom]

Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Neutron Stars and The Expanding Universe are all based on nonsense. Nonsense that cannot be Falsified (as per Popper) and therefore NOT science. The first 3 cannot be observed, only inferred. That puts them in the same realm as unicorns, fairies and other supernatural drek. Neutron Stars violate The Island of Stability rule of Nuclear Chemistry. The last is based on the first three and is therefore bullshit too.

Are you serious? Black holes have been spotted. Dark matter must exist or the universe doesn't work (based on gravity, research it). The Universe expanding has been proven by detecting red-shaded light from every galaxy known (again, research it if you don't know what that means).

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Are you serious? Black holes have been spotted. Dark matter must exist or the universe doesn't work (based on gravity, research it). The Universe expanding has been proven by detecting red-shaded light from every galaxy known (again, research it if you don't know what that means).

Okay, but this evidence is not only indirect, but it is lightyears away. As Descartes argued that even direct evidence should be considered highly theoretical, then the science depicted above should be considered beyond deep theory in the realm of make believe. Predicting the weather would be child's play in comparison.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Are you serious?

Yes, I am.


Black holes have been spotted.

No, they have not. The only thing that has been spotted are jets of matter streaming away from a point which show up in visual and IR. This is inferred as being the product of a black hole. There is NO observational evidence of a black hole since it CANNOT be observed.


Dark matter must exist or the universe doesn't work (based on gravity, research it).

Newsflash, wiseass, if the goddamn observations do not support your theory then the fucking THEORY is wrong. The Universe works perfectly fine without Dark Matter and Gravity Only since Electromagnetism is 10x39th power force STRONGER than Gravity. Plasma, the fundamental state of matter (which makes up greater than 99.99% of the visible matter in the universe) is electrically charged. Where there is electricity, there is magnetism.


The Universe expanding has been proven by detecting red-shaded light from every galaxy known (again, research it if you don't know what that means).

Sorry, non-cosmological redshifted Quasars (Quasi-Stellar Objects) have been observed since the 1960s. They have observed them connected via filamentary plasma to their parent galaxies. This blows a massive hole in the Redshift = Receding Objects theory. Hubble's Law was falsified by observational science.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Yes, I am.



No, they have not. The only thing that has been spotted are jets of matter streaming away from a point which show up in visual and IR. This is inferred as being the product of a black hole. There is NO observational evidence of a black hole since it CANNOT be observed.



Newsflash, wiseass, if the goddamn observations do not support your theory then the fucking THEORY is wrong. The Universe works perfectly fine without Dark Matter and Gravity Only since Electromagnetism is 10x39th power force STRONGER than Gravity. Plasma, the fundamental state of matter (which makes up greater than 99.99% of the visible matter in the universe) is electrically charged. Where there is electricity, there is magnetism.



Sorry, non-cosmological redshifted Quasars (Quasi-Stellar Objects) have been observed since the 1960s. They have observed them connected via filamentary plasma to their parent galaxies. This blows a massive hole in the Redshift = Receding Objects theory. Hubble's Law was falsified by observational science.

If gravity has always existed as an attraction, then it can't be interpreted as an attraction. Something is wrong somewhere. In other words, gravity could care less as the problem has always resided with our misinterpretation of how it exists. Besides, on top of this, gravity also repels.
Okay, the example I am about to give you is totally orginal and you are the first to hear it.
First off, philosophically speaking, in regards to how reality actually exists in deep theory, I am blind. Yet, I believe a blind man can be a scientist. So, I am able to understand.
In matters concerning reduction in science, reality reduces tautologically to the essence of (2+0)1/2 on the level of physics. As this conclusion is incomprehensible, a natural law needs to be included along with it: "No matter may collide but a force."
When doing experiments, students are being confused by using square magnets. Why are such magnets crafted? Well, when attempting to push together round ones, they will tend to spin and push away towards the side. The significance? Well, this shows we have guessed wrong at what the true inversion is to the attraction of gravity. We have always assumed the inverse repelling between two objects is in a straight line and in the exact opposite direction as the attraction between them which is an idea caused by the use of square magnets. But the repelling inverse is really pushing off to the side and is something I've coined as "centerpoint-friction." Also important to note, when three dimensional, round magnets attract together, they don't attract centerpoint to centerpoint in regards to tensor calculus.
I didn't developed this to advance modern science as modern science has led the American people astray and abandoned us. Science shouldn't exist for its own sake, but for the sake of that government which is in the best interest of the people. As our Founding Fathers established our nation utilizing the scientific method of natural law (this is different from the modern science we use now which was later established in Europe), we should seperate ourselves from tyranny today by adopting a new metaphysical science based on natural law.