Why doesnt creationism need any data?

Status
Not open for further replies.

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
45
Dallas, Texas
✟22,030.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
sandwiches asked: "Interesting. So, you're this guy... The Bible Believing Scientist (link deleted)

and you wrote this: Problems with Distant Horizons? (link deleted)

And this too, I'm guessing: (link to IEEE Transactions on Reliability deleted)"

Yes, I'm the guy... (Sorry I could not include the links. I'm just a greenhorn in this forum. If anyone is interested in the links, check the original post)

I can't speak for the IEEE article or a few others I found but couldn't read but I have to say that I am thoroughly unimpressed with the article I was able to read, "Problems with Distant Horizons," you make several uncorroborated claims such as:
One experimenter in a radiometric dating lab privately stated that 50% of the K/Ar results are discarded (and never reported) in order to preserve the apparent accuracy of the method.
Who said that? When? Where's his data? Where's the sample he analyzed?

And there are many other little comments that reek of conspiracy paranoia, personal bias, misunderstandings, hearsay, and exaggerations. Here's a few more examples:
Conspiracy and collusion among scientists-
Talking about the KBS Tuff...
Neither set of data had uncertainty bounds that would incorporate the other. However, the more recent dating had the weight of the paradigm and that eventually was sufficient to decide the controversy, where mere science was insufficient.
Several different people (Curtis et al, White and Harris, Hurford et al, Brock and Isaac, Hillhouse et al, Gleadow, McDougall et al, et cetera) using several different dating methods (40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, fission-track, etc) converged into a relatively small window of time which was correlated with the H2 tuff dated at around 1.88~Myr.

Personal bias regarding uniformitarianism:
An implicit assumption in extrapolating past history to predict the future is the hypothesis of Uniformitarianism (i.e., that past and future processes proceed at current rates using current mechanisms). Catastrophes must be well behaved to fit within this hypothesis.

Personal bias regarding science and misunderstanding as to how it works
Indeed, over 60 theories have been proposed to explain the Ice Age, all with serious difficulties.[2J What is the uncertainty in a predictive model incorporating all 60 theories?

More conspiracy paranoia with misunderstandings of the scientific process.
When the paradigm is challenged by the scientific data, the date is readily dismissed. Yet, when the paradigm is not challenged by the scientific data, artificially tight uncertainty bounds are accepted, without question! The level of credibility is influenced strongly by the paradigm, which in essence, is a philosophical decision.

To be blunt, with so many underhanded and uncorroborated comments reeking of personal prejudices and confirmation bias, I'm not sure how you think a scientist would not think that your paper isn't baloney, as it is a poorly veiled attempt at undermining geology and the underpinnings of science which are shown to work unsurprisingly well, every single day.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
sandwiches asked: "Interesting. So, you're this guy... The Bible Believing Scientist (link deleted)

and you wrote this: Problems with Distant Horizons? (link deleted)

And this too, I'm guessing: (link to IEEE Transactions on Reliability deleted)"

Yes, I'm the guy... (Sorry I could not include the links. I'm just a greenhorn in this forum. If anyone is interested in the links, check the original post)
Hmm. In your list of papers, I see a lot of nuclear engineering and risk assessment and precious little science. Where you do introduce science, it seems to reflect common creationist talking points rather than familiarity with the primary literature, or deep understanding of the scientific issues involved. For example, in "Problems with Distant Horizons", you give a series of radiometric dates for the Uinkaret Plateau that are a common feature in young-earth creationist publications. One of the dates seems to come(*) from Steve Austin's isochron work. That work has not been peer-reviewed, of course, and involves (according to those who have read it, not me) a fatal methodological error: he constructs an isochron from samples collected from different lava flows. Is that true? Do you understand why any date constructed from that procedure would not be the date of the plateau, if indeed the date means anything at all?

Similarly, you cite an article in Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta by Alibert et al for another of those dates. Have you read the article? Do you understand what they were trying to date, and why citing it as a date for the formation of the plateau is a misrepresentation of their work?

I really don't see sound science being done here. I certainly wouldn't let the Distant Horizons paper pass peer review, not because it tries to cast doubt on dating techniques, but because it neither offers new data nor engages adequately with previous results. Have you examined all of the published dates for the Uinkaret Plateau, and read all of the relevant papers? Have you understood what they were actually measuring, what the error modes might be, and considered possible ways they might be reconciled? If you have, you display no signs of it in what you write. If you haven't, then you really aren't applying the principles of scientific research.

(*) I can't be sure, because you don't associate particular dates with individual references.
 
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟38,280.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
The Bible talks about love and hate and has WAY more authority and accuracy than you.

Many books talk about love, hate and authority.

What kind of accuracy do you mean?
 
Upvote 0

James Wilson

Newbie
Aug 13, 2011
144
11
Idaho
✟7,839.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Sandwich quoted from one of my papers, "One experimenter in a radiometric dating lab privately stated that 50% of the K/Ar results are discarded (and never reported) in order to preserve the apparent accuracy of the method."

Then Sandwich asked, "Who said that? When? Where's his data? Where's the sample he analyzed? And there are many other little comments that reek of conspiracy paranoia, personal bias, misunderstandings, hearsay, and exaggerations."

I know I won't be able to reach you, because you are a true believer. I'll respond to your comment in hopes that someone with an open mind will read this. (And then I'll probably drop out of this thread. The continual ad hominem comments, misrepresentation and nitpicking take too much of my time. Besides, this forum isn't Science, it's sending a firing squard against a person who honestly has something to say).

I was amazed when the technician (the 'experimenter') told me personally that 50% of the results from potassium-argon dating (one of the most respected evolutionist techniques) were thrown out because they were off as much as several hundred million years. I begged him to let me quote him so that I could document this statement (I know how Science works!). His response, "Heck no (or something like that)! I'd lose my job!"

I couldn't put this clarification in the paper because I knew it would never get published if I did.

Do you know why I lost my job the first time? I had been invited by an evolutionist teacher to address his high school class. He said to me, "I teach them evolution. I want them to hear the other side." I was just a guest speaker (he also brought in 'mountain men' to teach the kids how to survive in the winter).
My boss' kid was in the class. As soon as he identified himself to me, I thought, "There goes my job."
I was fired for incompetence (I know an evolutionist would be pleased with that, but I was doing what the teacher had asked me to do... to give the kids the other side of the story). After my firing so many people protested the firing that the boss of my boss had to have a department meeting to explain to everyone why I was fired. I had people writing me from Europe asking me why I got fired (I was fired in Idaho).

The second time I got fired, I requested a geologist to review a paper that finally got accepted at a meeting of oil-exploration geologists (who, as I said in an earlier response to you, warned members to "beware of those Creationists"). That geologist e-mailed all of my bosses requesting that they fire me! (in a 7,000-person company, I had about 6-7 bosses, many of whom did not know me by name). He never did get back to me with a review of my paper.

Gee, I wonder why you think my papers "reek of conspiracy paranoia, personal bias, misunderstandings, hearsay, and exaggerations". You haven't been there! You don't know how hard it is to pry open the mind of an evolutionist (especially one with the power to fire you!).

Sometimes, when you meet a paranoid person, there's a valid reason for it.

I know this will not 'move' you. But I went through it. I hope someone out there will understand this is why you don't find much 'Creationist Science' out there. After the evolutionists fire enough people, there's nobody left to disagree.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Oh brother. JW, if your career is already ruined, why not just name names with your tales of mysterious and anomalous results that have to be cast aside in the name of the "Darwinist" paradigm?

And as far as naming names goes, we actually have some Christian scientists who do actual science that are evolution advocates posting here. Sfs has already weighed in. Kerr Metric is an astrophysicist. Shernren is studying physics. Lucaspa is an MD who I belive is involved in medical research. Mallon who is a paleontologist. Let's not forget other Christians like Ken Miller, Bob Bakker, Douglas Theobald, Mary Schweitzer, Francisl Collins, etc. who are working scientists, publishing work in peer reviewed publications that don't have to hide their Christian faith.

And since you went down the geology road in your post above, have you ever heard of Glenn Morton? I'd suggest you read his story.
Glenn Morton's story

The Creationist fantasy that all of science is a conspiracy against YECism is just that and has no basis in fact. The science has led the honest scientists where it has - just as the first old Earth geologists originally sought to demonstrate that the Flood had occured - and the haven't let their theology taint their findings.
 
Upvote 0

James Wilson

Newbie
Aug 13, 2011
144
11
Idaho
✟7,839.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
girne said, "If scientists of any shade, colour, sect, or nationality have something to say that is "true" NO ONE but NO ONE can decide to ignore it, if it's true it's true no matter who says it."

A common mistake is for people to think of Science being as exact as math. 2+2=4 and nobody disagrees with that... right? Not with Science, because most of the things said by Science require modeling and assumptions. No matter how strenuously logic is used, it's the assumptions that drive the conclusions... and the debate.

Let's take a look at Science under debate:

De Broglie, a PhD candidate with a background in music, decided that matter sometimes acted like music... or like a wave. His thesis advisors didn't know whether to flunk him as a flake or graduate him with honors. So they sent a copy of his paper to Einstein, who responded, "Graduate him with honors" (my paraphrase).

Fortunately, the thesis advisors didn't listen to one nobel laureate who said, "If DeBroglie gets a Nobel for this garbage, I'll resign my prize!" Science is not as black and white as some try to portray it. It is pure luck that Einstein won that debate for DeBroglie.

Interesting sidelight: DeBroglie was the first guy to win a Nobel Prize in Physics for something that he did in his doctoral dissertation.

Werner Heisenberg published his Uncertainty Theory in 1927, in which he
argued that we can never know both the location and velocity of small particles accurately. For years and many conferences afterward, Einstein argued against this theory by publicly saying, “God doesn’t place dice with the universe”.


Getting back to girne's wisdom, "If scientists of any shade, colour, sect or nationality have something to say that is "true", NO ONE but NO ONE can decide to ignore it, if it's true it's true no matter who says it."

I guess girne could have taught Einstein a thing or two.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
45
Dallas, Texas
✟22,030.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Sandwich quoted from one of my papers, "One experimenter in a radiometric dating lab privately stated that 50% of the K/Ar results are discarded (and never reported) in order to preserve the apparent accuracy of the method."

Then Sandwich asked, "Who said that? When? Where's his data? Where's the sample he analyzed? And there are many other little comments that reek of conspiracy paranoia, personal bias, misunderstandings, hearsay, and exaggerations."

I know I won't be able to reach you, because you are a true believer. I'll respond to your comment in hopes that someone with an open mind will read this. (And then I'll probably drop out of this thread. The continual ad hominem comments, misrepresentation and nitpicking take too much of my time. Besides, this forum isn't Science, it's sending a firing squard against a person who honestly has something to say).
Feel free to bow out any time you're not able to defend your position. I won't try to stop you.

I was amazed when the technician (the 'experimenter') told me personally that 50% of the results from potassium-argon dating (one of the most respected evolutionist techniques) were thrown out because they were off as much as several hundred million years. I begged him to let me quote him so that I could document this statement (I know how Science works!). His response, "Heck no (or something like that)! I'd lose my job!"
Pardon me if I think you're making things up.

I couldn't put this clarification in the paper because I knew it would never get published if I did.
Of course. because then it'd be clear it's uncorroborated hearsay.

Do you know why I lost my job the first time? I had been invited by an evolutionist teacher to address his high school class. He said to me, "I teach them evolution. I want them to hear the other side." I was just a guest speaker (he also brought in 'mountain men' to teach the kids how to survive in the winter).
My boss' kid was in the class. As soon as he identified himself to me, I thought, "There goes my job."
I was fired for incompetence (I know an evolutionist would be pleased with that, but I was doing what the teacher had asked me to do... to give the kids the other side of the story). After my firing so many people protested the firing that the boss of my boss had to have a department meeting to explain to everyone why I was fired. I had people writing me from Europe asking me why I got fired (I was fired in Idaho).
It seems like you made a mistake based on the suggestion of a teacher who doesn't quite understand what a science is.

The second time I got fired, I requested a geologist to review a paper that finally got accepted at a meeting of oil-exploration geologists (who, as I said in an earlier response to you, warned members to "beware of those Creationists"). That geologist e-mailed all of my bosses requesting that they fire me! (in a 7,000-person company, I had about 6-7 bosses, many of whom did not know me by name). He never did get back to me with a review of my paper.
I can't say that I'm surprised nor displeased, if the rest of your work and writings are similar to the page I linked.

Gee, I wonder why you think my papers "reek of conspiracy paranoia, personal bias, misunderstandings, hearsay, and exaggerations". You haven't been there! You don't know how hard it is to pry open the mind of an evolutionist (especially one with the power to fire you!).
Let me clarify something for you, as you seem a bit confused: Having an open mind means that you're willing to entertain and consider an idea that opposes yours. What it does not mean is that you accept any and every idea thrown at you.

Sometimes, when you meet a paranoid person, there's a valid reason for it.
And sometimes not.

I know this will not 'move' you. But I went through it. I hope someone out there will understand this is why you don't find much 'Creationist Science' out there. After the evolutionists fire enough people, there's nobody left to disagree.
[/INDENT]

I like your tactic. By dismissing me and others who disagree with you as "closed-minded," " a true believer," and immovable, you're avoiding having to defend your position as we are obviously "lost causes," I'm sure.
 
Upvote 0

James Wilson

Newbie
Aug 13, 2011
144
11
Idaho
✟7,839.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
sandwich said, "Pardon me if I think you're making things up."

I notice that one of your icons says you are an atheist.

Let me explain something to you: You don't mean anything to me. I don't wish to impress you.

Jesus means everything to me. I would die in an instant for Him and for my testimony. He sees everything. For all the riches in the world I would not lie in order to impress you.

I know you do not believe in my Jesus, BUT I DO. AND THAT CONTROLS MY ACTIONS.

Actually, you calling me a liar is kind of a compliment. It means that you understand the impact of my statement. The experimenter didn't say to me that only HE manipulated the data of one of the best techniques available for dating our world. He said it is REGULARLY done. Meaning many of your potassium argon dating people are lying to you... regularly. That strikes at the heart of evolution. If you can't trust your data, you have nothing! You couldn't say, "What you say is unimportant". You realize the importance of my report, and your only escape is to disbelieve the report. I'm the whistle blower... you can't bear the message. It's too earth shattering!

In case you didn't get that, let me give you an example:
Leakey's skull 1470 tested out at nearly three million years (see references below), almost a million years older than the Southern Ape (Australopithecus). Leakey declared publicly in a lecture in San Diego (I believe it was about 1975) that what he has found destroys all that we have ever been taught about human evolution, and, he said, "I have nothing to offer in its place!"

You evolutionists debated skull 1470's date for 10 years. Finding you couldn't disprove the date, the bones of a pig were dug at the site (quite a distance away, as I recall) without provenance (without proving it came from the same stata), and the pig was declared to be the same age as skull 1470, erasing an inconvenient truth.

But you don't have to worry about Leakey's inconvenient truth. I revealed to you the cause: Your lab techs are erasing up to 50% of the KAr dates prior to reporting them to the customers. NONE OF YOUR DATES ARE BELIEVEABLE!

Been nice having this scientific debate with you.

References:
Science News, Vol. 102, p. 324 (1972).
R.E.F. Leakey, National Geographic, Vol. 143, p. 819 (1973).

Side note: I understand what you're going to do... attack the messenger (now Leakey). You're going to point out that Leakey later agreed that his discovery was a southern ape, only 2 million years old (what's a million years among friends?), and since he doesn't have a PhD, he's unreliable. Amazing what 10 years of attack can do to scientific data, huh?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Side note: I understand what you're going to do... attack the messenger (now Leakey). You're going to point out that Leakey later agreed that his discovery was a southern ape, only 2 million years old (what's a million years among friends?), and since he doesn't have a PhD, he's unreliable. Amazing what 10 years of attack can do to scientific data, huh?

Looks like someone thinks he's up to passing Randi's Million Dollar Challenge...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
45
Dallas, Texas
✟22,030.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
sandwich said, "Pardon me if I think you're making things up."

I notice that one of your icons says you are an atheist.

Let me explain something to you: You don't mean anything to me. I don't wish to impress you.

Jesus means everything to me. I would die in an instant for Him and for my testimony. He sees everything. For all the riches in the world I would not lie in order to impress you.

I know you do not believe in my Jesus, BUT I DO. AND THAT CONTROLS MY ACTIONS.
I don't care to impress you. I was merely stating a fact: That uncorroborated hearsay is just that and has no place in a scientific paper is all. Correct me, if I'm wrong. However, we know that isn't the point of your little diatribe there. It's merely a way to deflect the argument and not having to defend your points, is all.

Actually, you calling me a liar is kind of a compliment.
Weird. Paranoids and many theists have one thing in common, the more you tell them they're wrong, the more assured they are of their beliefs.

It means that you understand the impact of my statement. The experimenter didn't say to me that only HE manipulated the data of one of the best techniques available for dating our world. He said it is REGULARLY done. Meaning many of your potassium argon dating people are lying to you... regularly. That strikes at the heart of evolution. If you can't trust your data, you have nothing! You couldn't say, "What you say is unimportant". You realize the importance of my report, and your only escape is to disbelieve the report. I'm the whistle blower... you can't bear the message. It's too earth shattering!
A Bible "literalist" claims some unnamed guy told him that all geologists are manipulating data to make the world appear older! Oh man... Geology is crumbling as we speak!

In case you didn't get that, let me give you an example:
Leakey's skull 1470 tested out at nearly three million years (see references below), almost a million years older than the Southern Ape (Australopithecus). Leakey declared publicly in a lecture in San Diego (I believe it was about 1975) that what he has found destroys all that we have ever been taught about human evolution, and, he said, "I have nothing to offer in its place!"

You evolutionists debated skull 1470's date for 10 years. Finding you couldn't disprove the date, the bones of a pig were dug at the site (quite a distance away, as I recall) without provenance (without proving it came from the same stata), and the pig was declared to be the same age as skull 1470, erasing an inconvenient truth.

But you don't have to worry about Leakey's inconvenient truth. I revealed to you the cause: Your lab techs are erasing up to 50% of the KAr dates prior to reporting them to the customers. NONE OF YOUR DATES ARE BELIEVEABLE!
You revealed something alright but not what you think, I'm afraid.

Been nice having this scientific debate with you.

References:
Science News, Vol. 102, p. 324 (1972).
R.E.F. Leakey, National Geographic, Vol. 143, p. 819 (1973).

Side note: I understand what you're going to do... attack the messenger (now Leakey). You're going to point out that Leakey later agreed that his discovery was a southern ape, only 2 million years old (what's a million years among friends?), and since he doesn't have a PhD, he's unreliable. Amazing what 10 years of attack can do to scientific data, huh?
Meh. Not worth the time. Take care.
 
Upvote 0

James Wilson

Newbie
Aug 13, 2011
144
11
Idaho
✟7,839.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally Posted by James Wilson
I know you do not believe in my Jesus, BUT I DO. AND THAT CONTROLS MY ACTIONS.
Nick665: Interesting. Are you saying your faith in Jesus controls your actions ?

James Wilson: Yes.

Nick665: Well at least you're honest. Its just that that sounds kinda bad. It almost sounds like you're not in control of your actions.

Were you ever so close to someone that you committed yourself completely to them (Mother, Dad, friend, spouse, child)? Did you feel trapped or blessed?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

James Wilson

Newbie
Aug 13, 2011
144
11
Idaho
✟7,839.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
James Wilson: Were you ever so close to someone that you committed yourself completely to them (Mother, Dad, friend, spouse, child)? Did you feel trapped or blessed?
girne: "Someone" perhaps but never an imaginary friend, we are supposed to forget them when we stop being children,
when we grow up we should put away childish things not cling to them.

Let me tell you a story about my Friend (before I do, let me remind you that we got into this thread because I said I do not lie. I'm accountable to Jesus and pleasing Him is more important than winning an argument or discussion with you).

When I got my first job here in Idaho, fresh out of grad school, I was too cheap to get a car so I rode my bicycle to work. And I was always late for work, so I would peddle fast and run through red lights when nobody was coming. I knew the Bible said we are supposed to obey the laws over us, but I rationalized, "But I should try not to be late for work!" (sometimes we Christians 'kick against the goads' or rebel a little bit).

A Voice spoke to me, "What if a child saw you breaking the law. They might do the same."

I rationalized again, "I'm not my brother's keeper." That sounded all right to my rebellious nature until I remembered that Cain had said these same words in defense of killing his brother. Still I felt comfortable enough with my sin to continue running red lights.

A couple of days later the Voice again spoke to me, "Can you give Me any reason for running red lights!"

Confronted so directly with my rebelliousness, I repented and promised God that I would not run any more red lights.

That night after work I started building up speed, peddling as fast as I could, as I approached the first stop sign on the way home (did I mention I ran stop signs too?). I had to do that because both lanes of traffic were going 40-50 miles an hour, and I had to slither through them, turn left and head up the steep overpass. Then I remembered my promise that morning to stop running red lights (which I knew included stop signs).

So I very reluctantly stopped peddling and coasted to the stop sign.

When I squeezed my brakes, nothing happened! I continued at a significant speed toward the stop sign and a fast-approaching car coming from the left would not have let me slither through this time! With nowhere safe to go, I ran off the road into the barrow pit (unpaved drainage) and dragged my feet as hard as I could. I barely stopped in time as the car sped by.

I immediately hopped off my bike to find out why the brakes hadn't worked. Both brake cables had been cut! An enemy had done this, probably because I'd just kicked him out of the house ministry I ran, for continually breaking the rules.

I was hopping mad! First because this enemy had endangered my life and damaged my bicycle! But then, I was also mad at God for allowing it to happen!

Then I remembered Job of the Bible. Satan didn't like the guy and wanted to kill him. At each turn, though, Satan not only had to report to God before attacking Job, but God also put limits upon what Satan could do! You see, everything that happens to us Christians is filtered through the love of God.

I realized that Satan and God had such a discussion about me. Satan saying, "I'm going to cut Jim's brake cables!" And God approving! But then coming to me and saying, "Can you give Me any reason for running red lights?"

Then I realized My Friend was still watching over me and fulfilling His promise to 'provide a way of escape'. But He didn't force me to take that way of escape.

He speaks to me, protecting me and getting me out of trouble. So, you can imagine how I smile when you say my Friend is imaginary. I've met Him, and been rescued many times. I'm sorry you haven't met Him yet, but your limited experience doesn't limit mine.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
T

Tabletform

Guest
He speaks to me, protecting me and getting me out of trouble. So, you can imagine how I smile when you say my Friend is imaginary. I've met Him, and been rescued many times. I'm sorry you haven't met Him yet, but your limited experience doesn't limit mine.​
Right..... please excuse me but I have to go now.
 
Upvote 0

Greg1234

In the beginning was El
May 14, 2010
3,745
38
✟11,792.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
"Someone" perhaps but never an imaginary friend, we are supposed to forget them when we stop being children,
when we grow up we should put away childish things not cling to them.

Actually,

1 Cor 13:11: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

You actually think that there is something difficult or "manly" about being a materialist in a material universe? The childish ways established 2000+ years ago are still the childish ways of today. The narrow path is still narrow and the wide is still wide. Regardless of the amelioration sought.
 
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟38,280.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Actually,

1 Cor 13:11: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

You actually think that there is something difficult or "manly" about being a materialist in a material universe? The childish ways established 2000+ years ago are still the childish ways of today. The narrow path is still narrow and the wide is still wide. Regardless of the amelioration sought.

I don't see the point in your verse. It agrees with the poster about how we should put childish things away.

Saying the childish ways of the past are the way of today, well that wasn't a compelling statement.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Oh brother. JW, if your career is already ruined, why not just name names with your tales of mysterious and anomalous results that have to be cast aside in the name of the "Darwinist" paradigm?

And as far as naming names goes, we actually have some Christian scientists who do actual science that are evolution advocates posting here. Sfs has already weighed in. Kerr Metric is an astrophysicist. Shernren is studying physics. Lucaspa is an MD who I belive is involved in medical research. Mallon who is a paleontologist. Let's not forget other Christians like Ken Miller, Bob Bakker, Douglas Theobald, Mary Schweitzer, Francisl Collins, etc. who are working scientists, publishing work in peer reviewed publications that don't have to hide their Christian faith.

And since you went down the geology road in your post above, have you ever heard of Glenn Morton? I'd suggest you read his story.
Glenn Morton's story

The Creationist fantasy that all of science is a conspiracy against YECism is just that and has no basis in fact. The science has led the honest scientists where it has - just as the first old Earth geologists originally sought to demonstrate that the Flood had occured - and the haven't let their theology taint their findings.

James, did you miss this post? It's been up for two days and you haven't addressed a single bit of it.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.