Creationism - Lazy Man's science?

[AV1611VET]

If you can find credible evidence of God, then you have a valid complaint.

LOL --- read that slowly.

But if you could, you'd be the first.

I wouldn't look for God in science, I'd look for God in faith.

You can't ask science to explore a concept for which there is no evidence.

I don't ask "science" to do anything. I ask "scientists". With that in mind, yes you can ask scientists to explore a "concept" which there is "no evidence". Besides, how do you know there's no evidence, if you haven't looked?

Science utilizes evidence to proceed. Without evidence there isn't anyplace to go -- nothing to explore.

Go tell your buddies at SETI that, and they'll laugh you out of existence.

You're only assuming there is a God and yet, you attempt to fault a sound scientific proposition simply because it doesn't support your blind assumption.

And you're assuming there isn't one.

Any Muslim could make the same claim about your Bible because it denies Allah as the Creator of the universe. If they're wrong because they can't support that assertion, then you're equally wrong because you can't support yours. They're both blind assumptions.

Israel wasn't "reborn" on a blind assumption. The Bible predicted it. The Jews, still in existence today despite every effort throughout history to exterminate them, shows some sort of "divine protection". The "elements" spoken of by a disciple of Jesus doesn't meet your criteria of "blind assumption". I could give you a whole list of scientific "discoveries" that the Bible already mentioned: from submarine currents to digital communication.

Evolution doesn't say anything about the first six days of Earth because evolution addresses only the mechanism which lead to the diversity of life on Earth.

Then let Someone Who did say something about the first six days of Earth have the floor.

It would be no more appropriate for it to say anything about the first six days of Earth than to include claims about zoology in a theory of radioactive decay rates.

I have a feeling science is inappropriate in a LOT of areas.

You should really learn the difference between the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Abiogenesis and theories of planetary creation.

And YOU should learn the Law of First Mention, Ontological Subordination, Vivification and Mortification, Progressive Sanctification, Eternal Security, Dispensationalism vs Covenant Theology, the Anthropic Principle, and the Fibonacci Series --- fair enough?

 

[JohnR7]

do the Bible and Evolution agree or do they disagree?

It depends on what you mean by evolution. Some of it is true and some of it is not true. The Bible is 100% truth. I think that some of what we call evolution will survive the test of time, but a lot of it will not survive. A lot of evolutionary theory has been falsifed and a lot more will be falsified.

To be sure a lot of "religion" has been falsified. But the Bible has NEVER been falsified. It has always been shown to be 100% true.

There is true science and that will always agree with the Bible, because the Bible is true. The Bible is only against what is not true.

 

[JohnR7]

I don't ask "science" to do anything.

Wise move, you can not be disappointed by science if you do not expect anything from science. But I have a lot of expectations. I expect my car to start in the morning. I expect the heater in my house to come on when it is cold outside. We depend on science for a lot of things and we would have to move to a tropical paradise if we wanted to get away from our dependancy.

 

[Beastt]

The Bible is 100% truth.

Demonstrably false.

Just because you won't accept that the Bible makes false claims doesn't make them any less false. It makes at least four demonstrably false claims in the first 20 verses of Genesis One.

I think that some of what we call evolution will survive the test of time, but a lot of it will not survive. A lot of evolutionary theory has been falsifed and a lot more will be falsified.

You keep making this claim but you obviously can't back it up because no matter how many times you've been prompted to do so, you continue to run from the challenge. Stop wasting your time on something you can't support.

To be sure a lot of "religion" has been falsified. But the Bible has NEVER been falsified.

Again, it is falsified no less than four times in the first 20 verses.

It has always been shown to be 100% true.

Unsupportable and demonstrably incorrect assertion, John.

There is true science and that will always agree with the Bible, because the Bible is true.

You're making an assumption about the standard of ultimate truth and then holding everything else to your assumption. Reality isn't based on assumption or desire, John. The Bible is demonstrably false in many, many areas. Like most other religious books, it can't even agree within its own pages.

The Bible is only against what is not true.

The Bible is likely the greatest source in our modern world for commonly held beliefs which are not only untrue, but can be demonstrated to be untrue.

 

[Lord_Marx]

Wise move, you can not be disappointed by science if you do not expect anything from science. But I have a lot of expectations. I expect my car to start in the morning. I expect the heater in my house to come on when it is cold outside. We depend on science for a lot of things and we would have to move to a tropical paradise if we wanted to get away from our dependancy.

So you admit that science is not worthless, right? You could not live as you do now without it.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's all in the Bible, AV1611VET, and you should know that because I've already posted the pertinent scripture to you.

Not hardly --- maybe your bible --- but not mine.

So I can only assume that you're saying that an "Evolutionary Novel" and the Bible read the same way.

You wouldn't know if it did --- would you?

And as far as your chapter list goes, you fumbled right out of the gate by writing, "Chapter 1 --- Survival of the Fittest".

Ya --- I read it. It's called "backpedaling". You evolutionists are embarrassed by some of the claims Darwin made --- so you simply say "that's not what he meant" --- or "I don't subscribe to Darwinism" --- or some such doubletalk.

Here's a list of your embarrassing Icons of Evolution:

• The Stanley Miller Experiment
  Darwin's Tree of Life
  Ernst Haeckel's Drawings of Embryos
  The Missing Link

 

[JohnR7]

Dispensationalism vs Covenant Theology

Your kidding me right? One really has nothing to do with the other. They should be two seperate courses in a Bible school. What makes you think that they should teach that they somehow conflict with each other?

 

[AV1611VET]

Your kidding me right? One really has nothing to do with the other. They should be two seperate courses in a Bible school. What makes you think that they should teach that they somehow conflict with each other?

Okay, good point. I'll take the "vs" out and replace it with a ",".

 

[AV1611VET]

If you have credible evidence, present it.

As I stated before, Jesus took all the proof of God's existence back to Heaven with Him, but He left enough evidence behind that we, through faith, can come to the conclusion that "God is".

Faith is nothing more than believing whatever one wishes to believe regardless of the evidence.

Not according to Hebrews 11:1 ---

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

So in faith you could believe in 65-ton, invisible butterflys. But that belief will never come with any kind of credible evidence and you'll never catch one, ride on one or be able to demonstrate that they exist.

Kinda like "air has no mass" --- right? Or maybe "phlogiston"? You know --- that sorta stuff that scientists swore by?

You can't ask a scientist to do other than practice science.

Oh, I think with a lab rat I might be able to bribe one or two.

If he complies, then he ceases to function as a scientist.

My --- they're walking on thin ice, aren't they?

Anytime anyone, regardless of what kind of Ph.D. they might hold, attempts to analyze that for which no credible evidence exists, they're not practicing science.

And what (or who) determines the evidence's "credibility"?

Science is a strictly defined process, not a psychic guessing game.

So "defined" they defined that air has no mass, and defined phlogiston?

I conclude that there is no credible evidence of God because I've looked, (I believed for 33-years) and because I've repeatedly asked for this evidence from those who still believe. All of them have come up just as you have so far -- empty.

Again, the Holy Spirit's job here right now is NOT to leave an audit trail --- but that's about to end.

So instead they fall back on faith because faith is believe independent of evidence. It's imagination held as truth.

No --- blind faith is --- real faith is as I quoted above.

SETI is searching for a route of evidence to follow.

Oh, now it's a "route of evidence". Before, when they were getting government grants, they were searching for "objective evidence". Now that they've looked and looked and looked and looked --- they're looking for a "route"?

That's pretty good. If the car doesn't show up --- just claim that you've been looking down the wrong road.

If they find one, proceding upon that evidence will be a practice of science. Right now, they, like you, are still looking for evidence upon which to proceed.

Haven't given up yet, huh? Like they did on God? Well, that's good. They have "faith" that someday an ET will say "hello".

The difference is that the burden of proof is always upon those who claim the existence of that for which there exists no known evidence.

Huh?

When anyone can provide credible evidence of 65-ton invisible butterflys, Leprechauns, life on other planets or God, then there is evidence for science to observe, analyze and explore.

Translation: when someone finds something, scientists will be there to take the credit.

Don't call me until you find and trap Big Foot first --- THEN we'll be there to get our picture in Scientific American.

Until then, you're simply expecting that science will stop being science and enter into mythology to pursue your pet assumptions.

Like spoon-bending, sending astronauts into orbit with a deck of cards to prove psychic links to a subject in a lab, going ga-ga over James Hydrick's ability to flip pages in a telephone book or move a pencil under an inverted aquarium?

Send a letter to Black Flag telling them that ants and cockroaches are exhibiting evidence of divine protection. Maybe they'll stop wasting their time formulating bug sprays specific to those species.

Sure, it'll read like this:

Dear Black Flag,

We've killed all the bugs except for just a handful left on the earth, but all of a sudden, your formula isn't working anymore.

What gives? They've even returned to their original nest, despite all our efforts to stop them!

Please explain.

Sincerely, the Devil

BTW, ants and cockroaches have been around a lot longer than any humans.

Ya --- one day.

Please do. I see the claims of fulfilled prophecies all the time but rarely does anyone know the scripture. And I would like to see the exact scripture because these proclaimed "fulfilled prophecies" are usually of such a vague nature as to be meaningless.

How about the fact that they are even mentioned as existing in the latter days? Does that help?

None-the-less, I have seen a few which are very intriguing. Most of come from bibles other than the Holy Bible but have been fulfilled.

Of course --- we won't mention the Christian Bible, either. We'll make sure credit goes to others first, too.

Science is a means by which to explore the nature of reality. If you wish to explore that which isn't real, then science would be an inappropriate choice. You should perhaps pursue such things through mythology.

Like I said --- tell that to your buddies at SETI, who probably are making more money than you and I combined.

I recall your brief lesson on Ontological Subordination. It was yet another demonstration of the polytheistic nature of Christianity...

Here we go --- reading comprehension failure strikes again. Can't find the trinity in the Bible, huh? Oh well, let SETI look for it.

...as usual, devoid of anything but unsupported assertion.

Ya ya ya.

Unsupported assertion is easy. Fiction writers do it for a living. As for the rest, when you think I'm attempting to speak on any of those subjects from a position of authority, you let me know exactly which one you believe applies and why you think it applies.

Then don't ask me to read up on your science, if you're not willing to read up on my Bible --- fair enough?

In the mean time, I would suggest that if you wish to engage in debates about scientific theories, you should have at least a reasonable familiarity with what each theory addresses, and what it states.

Which one of us, Beastt, is out of water in this Christian Forum --- you or me? I suggest if you're gonna come here, please leave your lab coats, and your lab rats, and your vials, and your scientific calculators back "home", and bring a pad and pencil and learn a few things.

 

[NASAg03]

wow, this thread it taking a turn for the worst.

as for the whole lack of existance of water because of the lack of heat, we did have geothermal energy, did we not? i'm not sure when this energy developed, since it's the result of pressure due to gravity, but i'm sure it was there and made it self known, heating the earth. the earth didnt' just start getting warm because of the sun, especially it there was not atmosphere. and although the earth could be thought of as a giant heat sink, most of that heat would be quicly transferred away without an atmopshere.

 

[FadingWhispers3]

So I guess I want to know what people think: Is Creationism just lazy man's science?

Are you kidding me? Creationism isn't a science period. This coming from someone who believes God created everything.

A science has to explain, not merely account for. Science tries to explain "how." Creationism doesn't even try to explain "how."

Even if evolution is completely false, which may or may not be the case, it is still more science than Creationism will ever be.

 

[Beastt]

wow, this thread it taking a turn for the worst.

Threads tend to heat up, cool down, have times of high activity, low activity, and eventually they cool off completely and die. No one has ever been injured by a thread on a forum to the best of my knowledge so I tend not to be overly A. R. about such things.

as for the whole lack of existance of water because of the lack of heat, we did have geothermal energy, did we not?

I'm not sure if you've misread something, if I've misread something or if I simply missed something you read. But I tend to think perhaps you've misinterpreted one of the logical problems I've demonstrated with the proposed creation story in Genesis One.

The problem isn't a lack of water and there isn't a connection between lack of heat and lack of water. The problem is that Genesis 1:2 talks about the water on the Earth and Genesis 1:9 talks about the appearance of the first dry land. So it stands to reason that until Genesis 1:9, the entire Earth was covered in water. But while we have a claim that water existed from at least Genesis 1:2, there isn't any atmosphere until Genesis 1:6. Though people from 2,000 years ago had no way to know this, atmospheres are instrumental in gathering and retaining water -- especially if that water is liquid and on the surface as Genesis indicates. The atmosphere serves to melt comets, which often contain a high percentage of water and to provide a medium within which, the hydrologic cycle takes place. Without an atmosphere, comets would crash into the Earth without first melting and adding the resulting water vapor to that already in the atmosphere. Once the water crashed to the surface, the radiation from the sun which our atmosphere filters out, would cause the water to rapidly evaporate and simply drift off into space. No atmosphere = no water.

i'm not sure when this energy developed, since it's the result of pressure due to gravity, but i'm sure it was there and made it self known, heating the earth. the earth didnt' just start getting warm because of the sun, especially it there was not atmosphere. and although the earth could be thought of as a giant heat sink, most of that heat would be quicly transferred away without an atmopshere.

Well, I appreciate the thought you've put into this and I have to say that it's far more refreshing than the standard, "the Bible doesn't say that because it doesn't mean what it says, it means what I say it says and that word is wrong and the original translation didn't say that", line of objection. I've offered reproductions of the Hebrew etchings which clearly show that those who read and speak Hebrew as their native tongue read it to say exactly what I have proclaimed that it says.

But having said that, there are some obvious problems with what you're proposing. Firstly, it doesn't solve the problem of having a planet covered in water yet devoid of an atmosphere.

But it might help to explain plants growing on the Earth before the sun was created except for a few problems you may not have considered. First and most obvious, plants need both heat and light and geothermal energy doesn't provide them with the necesary light. Secondly, and more importantly, you're pointing to a source of thermal energy as though it existed during the formation of the planet, but then slowly tapered off. But the cause of this energy is the pressure created by the planet's own gravity pressing it's mass toward the core. This isn't plausible because the same amount of gravity exists today as it did then so we should be producing the same amount of pressure-induced geothermic energy as we did before the Bible claims the sun was created.

So let's assume for a moment that the Earth contained enough geothermic energy to promote the growth of plants and, just for the sake of argument, we won't even worry about the problem with the lack of light. So we have the Earth, dark but warm enough to grow plants, with water and an atmosphere. The warmth isn't coming from the sun because the sun doesn't exist yet but the gravitational force of the planet's mass is creating sufficient pressure to produce the necessary thermal energy for plant growth.

Now God creates the sun. Have you ever noticed how quickly things warm up when the sun starts to rise from the horizon? Ever notice how quickly things cool when the sun slips into dusk? We're assuming there was enough geothermic energy to promote plant growth so it's fair to say the planet would have to be a bit above freezing. Now we're adding the thermal energy of the sun to the geothermic energy already contained within the Earth. I think it's fair to say that within an hour or two, those plants are going to be burned stubs. You simply can't have enough geothermic energy to grow plants, then add the thermal energy of the sun to that, and not burn everything to a crisp.

The Earth isn't going to instantly stop producing geothermic heat just because the sun exists. In fact, it should be producing roughly the same amount of heat now that it did then. The difference would be that all of this life has produced higher quantities of oxygen, carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere. And since carbon dioxide and methane are both greenhouse gases, the planet would be even hotter. You'd have the original geothermic heat energy, the heat energy from the sun and the increased heat retention from greenhouse gases filling the atmosphere. It might be a good day to get a good 15-second tan, but you wouldn't want to try to grow anything flammable.

 

[dad]

But it might help to explain plants growing on the Earth before the sun was created except for a few problems you may not have considered. First and most obvious, plants need both heat and light and geothermal energy doesn't provide them with the necesary light.

Light was made before the sun. It provided all that was needed, yet it was a different light.

This isn't plausible because the same amount of gravity exists today as it did then so we should be producing the same amount of pressure-induced geothermic energy as we did before the Bible claims the sun was created..

I see your claim here. Can you support it please? That the gravity was the same as before the sun was created? What--you can't do that?!!!!!!!! Come on beast, you make a claim, don't you think you ought to be able to back it up?????

Ever so patiently, I await your response. Honestly, it is time that the so called science advocates were called to task, (just watch this guy's great answer.)

 

[JohnR7]

Faith is nothing more than believing whatever one wishes to believe regardless of the evidence.

Faith is evidence. Faith comes from God, so it is evidence of God working in our lives. Of course you could not testify to that because the only faith you know is human faith or what some people call positive thinking. God's faith working in us is a lot more powerful than human faith.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Chapter 11 in Hebrews is the Faith Chapter. It is a good chapter to read if you want to learn about faith. You can not base your understanding on what you think you know about it. We base what we know on the Bible and what the Bible tells us.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Hey John,

Now that you're back online, any chance of you actually providing links to those websites you say actually explain your position better than you can?

 

[JohnR7]

Light was made before the sun.

God created the effect first and then the cause? Isn't that a little bit like getting the cart before the horse?

 

[USincognito]

wow, this thread it taking a turn for the worst.

That's what happens when certain individuals get involved. The ignore button is there for a reason.

as for the whole lack of existance of water because of the lack of heat, we did have geothermal energy, did we not? i'm not sure when this energy developed, since it's the result of pressure due to gravity, but i'm sure it was there and made it self known, heating the earth. the earth didnt' just start getting warm because of the sun, especially it there was not atmosphere. and although the earth could be thought of as a giant heat sink, most of that heat would be quicly transferred away without an atmopshere.

I'm not sure if the "NASA" in your user ID is related to the space shuttle or not, but there's another government entity you might want to check out and that's the U.S. Geological Survery. www.usgs.gov

Geothermal energy comes from water that is below ground and is pressurized because it is near a heat source, namely magma, not gravity, not the Sun, not anything other than being in a contained area (the ground) and near a heat source (hot liquid ground).

Geothermal vents have nothing to do with atmospheric heat what so ever.

 

[Beastt]

As I stated before, Jesus took all the proof of God's existence back to Heaven with Him, but He left enough evidence behind that we, through faith, can come to the conclusion that "God is".

Why would he do that? What purpose does it serve to want everyone to believe in God, then take all of the evidence away? How did he take this evidence? What exactly was this evidence? How do you know he took the evidence? It sounds like a lot of unsupported conjecture. Meanwhile, many Christians continue to proclaim they have evidence. Are they proclaiming that Jesus didn't do what you claim he did?

Faith is nothing more than believing whatever one wishes to believe regardless of the evidence.

Not according to Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Perhaps you should read it again. That's exactly what it's telling you; that "faith" is the substance of what you hope for. In other words, it is belief in anything you hope might be true. And you'll notice that hope doesn't require evidence.

Kinda like "air has no mass" --- right? Or maybe "phlogiston"? You know --- that sorta stuff that scientists swore by?

Phlogiston theory never even made it out of the 17th century, it was defeated in 1753. You, like others, seem to think that if science isn't perfect, then it can never be correct. And despite this assumption, you sit at a computer, tap out your responses and think nothing about the fact that in seconds, your thoughts and ideas arrive in the form of electronic pulses, to be recorded as a series of flux transistions on a platter of magnetic media for the whole world to see. That was brought to you by the work of science. You clearly don't understand what science is and isn't. Science isn't a proclamation of perfect knowledge. It is a means of observation, conclusion and testing. The testing never stops which is why failed scientific ideas eventually fail. Meanwhile, you insist on believing in a book which proclaims that the sun and moon reside in the Earth's atmosphere, that plants can grow without heat and light and that the sun orbits the Earth.

Oh, I think with a lab rat I might be able to bribe one or two.

I take this to mean that you have no productive comment.

My --- they're walking on thin ice, aren't they?

Yes they are! And that is much the point. If they deviate a fraction from the scientific method, then they're not practicing science anymore. And since there are always others adhering strictly to the scientific method, any conclusions drawn outside of the scientific method are subject to immediate scrutiny and eventual failure.

And what (or who) determines the evidence's "credibility"?

It is the nature of the evidence itself. That often proclaimed as evidence by Christians is their own personal experience. But such experience can't be differentiated from the same kinds of proclaimed experience offered by those of other religions which believe in other gods. The experiences can't be tested or examined, they're purely subjective. And subjective evidence, by it's very nature, isn't credible.

So "defined" they defined that air has no mass, and defined phlogiston?

No, they observed that air allowed other physical matter to pass through it and concluded, (wrongly), that since two objects of mass cannot occupy the same space, that one of the objects must be devoid of mass. They also noticed that when any flammable material was burned, it burned only for a limited time and changed form. So they developed hypotheses based upon these observations. But you're reaching well back into the history of modern science to dredge up these old, failed theories. You have to understand that peer review was very difficult in those days because information didn't travel nearly as fast or as far. Far fewer people were trained in the scientific method. So it took longer for the peer-review process to filter out theories by showing them to contrast one or more pieces of evidence.

Again, the Holy Spirit's job here right now is NOT to leave an audit trail --- but that's about to end.

It's been "about to end" for 2,000 years now. Don't hold your breath.

No --- blind faith is --- real faith is as I quoted above.

What you quoted above, (Hebrews 11:1), is the very definition of blind faith, "the substance of things hoped for". If you hope for it, then you believe it and do so independently of the evidence. How much more blindly can any belief be held?

Oh, now it's a "route of evidence". Before, when they were getting government grants, they were searching for "objective evidence". Now that they've looked and looked and looked and looked --- they're looking for a "route"?

That's pretty good. If the car doesn't show up --- just claim that you've been looking down the wrong road.

As I stated, if they find the evidence they're looking for, then the science can start. Until then, they're working with only moderate evidence, (photos of UFOs, video clips, reports from radar operators, often with video of the radar tracking, etc.), in the hope of finding more evidence to follow.

Meanwhile you criticize them for engaging in a search for evidence and you base your beliefs on evidence you proclaim doesn't exist and hasn't existed in your lifetime because Jesus took it with him. And while you claim SETI has "looked and looked and looked and looked", you continue to spout the same claims that have failed for all of the past 2,000 years, without evidence and without anything but blind-faith to offer for support.

Haven't given up yet, huh? Like they did on God? Well, that's good. They have "faith" that someday an ET will say "hello".

Are you attempting to imply that there isn't any evidence supporting the idea that extraterrestrials might exist? If you are, then I feel it appropriate to point out that there are mountains of evidence. We have photographs, video clips, NASA footage, radar images, radiation burns left on the ground and many other bits of evidence. That doesn't mean that extraterrestrials do exist but it is the job of science to utilize the existing evidence to attempt to draw a rational conclusion. And if certain research programs choose to search for additional evidence, they're not violating any scientific principles in doing so.

Huh?

What part of "burden of proof" didn't you understand? Anytime someone proclaims the existance of anything, yet can't produce any evidence for what they proclaim, they hold the burden to produce substantiation for their claim. If I tell you there is a 40-foot giant in your closet, it's not up to you to prove there isn't. If I can't provide evidence for the 40-foot giant, I continue to hold the burden of providing substantiation for its existence. Were it not for that simple principle, anything anyone wanted to imagine would be proclaimed to exist until it was demonstrated not to exist. That would be a tremendous waste of time. So until you can provide evidence, you shouldn't expect that anyone aside from yourself holds any responsibility to address your assertions. Support them or consider them defeated by their own lack of support.

Translation: when someone finds something, scientists will be there to take the credit.

No, when someone finds something, scientists will be there to observe it and through that observation, to determine its nature. Science isn't a process of being the first to proclaim a discovery. It's about learning the nature of reality.

Don't call me until you find and trap Big Foot first --- THEN we'll be there to get our picture in Scientific American.

Science fame isn't won by claiming credit for the discovery of others. But science isn't about following clueless trails either. You believe you have a clueless trail and you attempt to fault science for not following it. But without clues, (evidence), there is nothing for science to follow. If you discover a big foot, then hopefully your discovery will not be as devoid of evidence as your belief in God. You should have a photo, video, a footprint, some hair or some other indication, aside from your subjective claim, upon which science can proceed. Otherwise your claim is no more valid than the claims of those who said they saw Elvis after he was known to be dead.

Like spoon-bending, sending astronauts into orbit with a deck of cards to prove psychic links to a subject in a lab, going ga-ga over James Hydrick's ability to flip pages in a telephone book or move a pencil under an inverted aquarium?

You seem to be prone to confusing experiments to determine whether or not evidence exists with the observation of evidence. Sometimes one must experiment to see if evidence exists upon which to proceed with the scientific process. If you have an objective experiment to see if there is evidence of God, then submit your methodology. Otherwise you're simply attempting to fault people for engaging in the process of looking for something upon which the scientific method can be applied. People are welcome to look. But until they have something for science to work with, it's foolish to fault science for not proceeding.

Sure, it'll read like this:

Dear Black Flag,

We've killed all the bugs except for just a handful left on the earth, but all of a sudden, your formula isn't working anymore.

What gives? They've even returned to their original nest, despite all our efforts to stop them!

Please explain.

Sincerely, the Devil

Do you believe that ants and cockroaches are receiving divine protection? Either you do or you don't. And if you don't, then you've gone the first step toward explaining to yourself why your assumption about the Jewish people is faulty.

Ya --- one day.

Upon what evidence do you make such an assertion?

How about the fact that they are even mentioned as existing in the latter days? Does that help?

Peter Pan and Tinkerbell are mentioned. That doesn't mean they're real or ever were.

Of course --- we won't mention the Christian Bible, either. We'll make sure credit goes to others first, too.

I asked that you mention those from the Christian Bible but you didn't provide any. That was your choice. You are, of course, still welcome to present them. But you should do so knowing that there isn't anything special about religious books which offer fulfilled prophecy. It's more the rule than the exception.

So what do you have to present?

Like I said --- tell that to your buddies at SETI, who probably are making more money than you and I combined.

SETI is engaged in a search for evidence based upon that evidence we already have. We have photographs of unidentified flying objects. Often times these objects are unlike any flying craft with which the majority of the public is familiar. Perhaps these are extra-terrestrial in nature, perhaps they're not. But they are evidence that perhaps extraterrestrial life exists and they're engaged in a continuing search for more evidence -- evidence which science might be able to analyze and explore. What, exactly, is your objection to SETI?

Here we go --- reading comprehension failure strikes again. Can't find the trinity in the Bible, huh? Oh well, let SETI look for it.

I grasp the concept of the trinity just fine, thank you. The trinity is an attempt to have three distinct gods, while still maintaining a claim of monotheism. You might be fooled by such sleight of hand, but that doesn't mean everyone is. If you have three gods, even if you suggest they are all part of one entity, your belief is polytheistic in nature, not monotheistic.

Then don't ask me to read up on your science, if you're not willing to read up on my Bible --- fair enough?

What part of, "I believed for 33-years" do you not understand? I have read your Bible. There are many parts I've read dozens of times. And the more I read it, the more I study it, the more I find it to be completely lacking in credibility. I've read more of the Bible since I abandoned belief than I ever did when I believed. Had I read more if it sooner, I probably would have abandoned belief in it sooner. It's simply not a credible book. It makes continual and repeated claims so obviously fallacious that even Christians can no longer accept it for what it actually says. Everytime you show a Christian what the actual words say, they begin a game of word-swapping to try to lend credibility where none exists.

Since you're attempting to engage in a discussion about science, I don't find it at all inappropriate that it be suggested that you make yourself familiar with the concepts you're challenging before you dub yourself qualified to challenge them. You clearly do not understand what science is or what it isn't. You have a chip on your shoulder because scientists won't just arbitrarily announce your personal subjective beliefs to be "facts". But proper science never claims anything as indisputable fact. There are those things which comply with the available evidence and those things which do not. Science embraces that which complies and rejects that which does not. Much of what the Bible claims does not comply with the evidence provided by reality. Hence, the claims aren't real; they're fallacious.

Which one of us, Beastt, is out of water in this Christian Forum --- you or me? I suggest if you're gonna come here, please leave your lab coats, and your lab rats, and your vials, and your scientific calculators back "home", and bring a pad and pencil and learn a few things.

This is General Apologetics. If you're more comfortable in Christian Apologetics, there is nothing I'm aware of preventing you from engaging people there instead of here. As it is, there is nothing about General Apologetics which excludes the demonstrations of reality in demonstrating the difference between what is real and what is proclaimed in the Bible.

 

[dad]

God created the effect first and then the cause? Isn't that a little bit like getting the cart before the horse?

No, because there was and will be other light than the light of the sun we know.

 

[Beastt]

God created the effect first and then the cause? Isn't that a little bit like getting the cart before the horse?

Are you forgetting that our sun is not the only source of light in the universe?