Do non-experts really appreciate the work and knowledge of experts?

[vossler]

There goes history, a large part of physics (all observations from the past), anthropology, forensic science etc etc.

Ahh, the key word observations. I have no problem with observable evidence, it's the stuff that hasn't been observed that I have a problem with.

 

[caravelair]

Ahh, the key word observations. I have no problem with observable evidence, it's the stuff that hasn't been observed that I have a problem with.

so if a theory makes predictions about what evidence we should find, and we can observe that evidence, then you have no problem with that theory?

 

[caravelair]

How do you accurately test something that happened in the distant past if you weren't there?

easy, by testing the falsifiable predictions of your theory. common descent makes many predictions about what evidence we must find in the present, and also about what evidence we will find in fossils from the past. there are many ways to test it.

are you claiming that we can't scientifically know anything about the past? hello? forensic science?

No matter how you do it, you're basing it on assumptions, not facts.

exactly what assumptions do you think evolution is based on? it is most certainly based on facts.

 

[vossler]

so if a theory makes predictions about what evidence we should find, and we can observe that evidence, then you have no problem with that theory?

On the surface this sounds good, although without knowing a specific example I'm not ready to categorically accept it.

 

[dad]

in other words: 100% fantasy.

Interesting. You claim that the future will not also be spiritual. I suppose you also think the universe is not temporary and will not pass away. I dare you to support it. -Phoney.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Interesting. You claim that the future will not also be spiritual. I suppose you also think the universe is not temporary and will not pass away. I dare you to support it. -Phoney.

You STILL don't get it. It's YOUR claim, it's up to YOU to support it. You never can, so we are justified in calling it fantasy.

It's you who are the phoney.

 

[dad]

You STILL don't get it. It's YOUR claim, it's up to YOU to support it. You never can, so we are justified in calling it fantasy.

I can do that.
Now, on to YOUR claims of the old age crowd, that the future and past are just physical as the present. You STILL don't get it. It's YOUR claim, it's up to YOU to support it. You never can, so we are justified in calling it fantasy.
Very justified. See, you can't support it. Get it? Seriously. All you can do is make unsubstansiated claims "AS IF" it were a fact! Science cannot go into the future or past to tell us one way OR the other. My merged support therefore comes from elsewhere, and agrees with science, and evidence. You are left with nothing, so start acting like it.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I can do that.

No, you cannot. You have been repeatedly asked to do so; you have ALWAYS failed.

Now, on to YOUR claims of the old age crowd, that the future and past are just physical as the present. You STILL don't get it. It's YOUR claim, it's up to YOU to support it. You never can, so we are justified in calling it fantasy.

It has been supported, in many threads, by many people. You just choose to ignore the evidence.

Very justified. See, you can't support it.

False.

Get it? Seriously. All you can do is make unsubstansiated claims "AS IF" it were a fact! Science cannot go into the future or past to tell us one way OR the other.

It doesn't need to.

My merged support therefore comes from elsewhere, and agrees with science, and evidence.

Your 'merged support' no doubt comes from elsewhere; it agrees with no science and no evidence.

 

[vossler]

easy, by testing the falsifiable predictions of your theory. common descent makes many predictions about what evidence we must find in the present, and also about what evidence we will find in fossils from the past. there are many ways to test it.

The weatherman makes many predictions too, that doesn't mean I trust him anymore than I do any other scientist. Sure scientists have come up with some good theories as to our past, but since none of us was there and God was, I think I go with what He says.

are you claiming that we can't scientifically know anything about the past? hello? forensic science?

I said distant past.

exactly what assumptions do you think evolution is based on? it is most certainly based on facts.

First of all it assumes the non-existence of miracles and wonders of God. It also assumes that the dating methods being used are correct when many times an item can be dated with one method to be of a certain age and then another method gives a completely different answer.

Let's face it since there is no witness to the past one has to make certain assumptions in order to evaluate it. Here are a few random others that come to mind. Only explanations without a creator are viable. Don't evolutionists claim that the totality of matter and energy has always been the same? That sounds an awful lot like an assumption. What about the transition from non-living to living, this is somehow assumed to be a gradual change from simple elements to molecules to life. There is no proof of this.

Here's one that really gets me, mutations and Natural Selection alone are somehow able to develop new elements whereby they organize into a more complex life form, and then somehow, unknown to us, develop new information from which to change into other forms. That's one heck of an assumption.

One more: natural laws continue today as they always have.

I realize some of the assumptions I mentioned are out of the scope of science, but that's just it, this isn't solely a science question.

 

[dad]

No, you cannot. You have been repeatedly asked to do so; you have ALWAYS failed.

Then here goes. I will support the future change in the universe from the bible. It says this heavens will pass away, and a new ones appear. Care to challenge that baby?

It has been supported, in many threads, by many people. You just choose to ignore the evidence.

You must have missed something. Piling theories and assumptions on an assumption and belief the past and future were as the present supports nothing. How does the fossil record tell us there was no spiritual component to matter?

Your 'merged support' no doubt comes from elsewhere; it agrees with no science and no evidence.

It agrees with all science and physical evidence and fossil record, and the bible. Why talk for nothing when you lack the nitty gritty?

 

[caravelair]

The weatherman makes many predictions too, that doesn't mean I trust him anymore than I do any other scientist.

that is not the same type of prediction i am talking about. a theory makes predictions about what evidence we should find. we then TEST THE PREDICTIONS. that is how we know whether they are right or not.

Sure scientists have come up with some good theories as to our past, but since none of us was there and God was, I think I go with what He says.

you mean you will ignore science over your fallible personal interpretation of a book written by men who claimed to be inspired by god.

I said distant past.

what's the difference? you weren't THERE at the murder scene either. thing that happen in the past leave traces that remain in the present. if we can't know about the distant past, are you saying we can't know that dinosaurs lived then? we find there bones, sure it's possible that they were planted there to deceive us, but it is far more reasonable to assume they belonged to animals that once lived. no one was THERE. no one has ever seen a dinosaur walking around. we still know it happened. to claim we can't know about the past through science is, quite frankly, stupid.

First of all it assumes the non-existence of miracles and wonders of God.

no it doesn't. we can't test for miracles with science because it is a limitation of the method, but we make NO assumptions about whether or not they exist.

It also assumes that the dating methods being used are correct...

no it doesn't, there are many lines of evidence for evolution which have nothing to do with any dating method.

... when many times an item can be dated with one method to be of a certain age and then another method gives a completely different answer.

only if the methods are used incorrectly. creationists like to purposely use the methods incorrectly to try to show that they are giving inconsistent results. that is nothing more than total dishonesty. proper scientists who know what they are doing can produce accurate results that do correlate with each other.

Let's face it since there is no witness to the past one has to make certain assumptions in order to evaluate it.

what assumptions? you have named 2 things that you thought were assumptions of evolution, and neither one actually is.

Here are a few random others that come to mind. Only explanations without a creator are viable.

correction: only falsifiable explanations are testable. this does not assume that a creator doesn't exist or that he didn't have anything to do with anything. we don't need to make assumptions about god to test our hypothesis. all we do is check to see if the evidence fits our predictions, and it does.

for example, if evolution is true, then all species we ever find on earth must fit into a twin nested hierarchy of grouping. a horse with bird's wings, or a centaur or any other animal that has a mixture of characteristics of 2 unrelated groups, would violate the twin nested hierarchy, and immediately falsify evolution. tell me, where in there do you see any assumptions about dating methods, or about whether or not a god exists? it has nothing to do with either of those things.

on the other hand though, if god created species as they are today, there is NO reason he couldn't have created a pegasus, or a centaur, or given bats bird-like wings instead of the ones they have, or feathers, or whatever. yet EVERY SINGLE SPECIES we have ever found fits into a twin nested hierarchy. why would god create species to look like they evolved?

Don't evolutionists claim that the totality of matter and energy has always been the same?

no. evolution is not about matter and energy, it is about diversity of species. physicists are the ones who talk about matter and energy. biologists are the ones who study evolution.

What about the transition from non-living to living, this is somehow assumed to be a gradual change from simple elements to molecules to life. There is no proof of this.

this has nothing to do with evolution either. you are talking about abiogenesis which is one theory on how life came into existence. evolution does not depend on abiogenesis in any way. evolution itself says nothing whatsoever about how life came into being. it could have been through abiogenesis, it could have been created by god, it could have been seeded by aliens... as far as evolution is concerned, it doesn't matter which of these is correct.

Here's one that really gets me, mutations and Natural Selection alone are somehow able to develop new elements whereby they organize into a more complex life form, and then somehow, unknown to us, develop new information from which to change into other forms. That's one heck of an assumption.

that's not an assumption, it's an observation. we have directly observed many examples where mutation creates a new protien or something, and evolution selects for this new trait.

One more: natural laws continue today as they always have.

ah, here you're getting a little closer to the truth. we do assume that things like erosion would happen the same in the past as they do today. that seems like quite a reasonable assumption, don't you think? that's more of an assumption of geology than evolution though. and even so, not all lines of evidence depend on this. my twin nested hierarchy example, for example, does not require this assumption.

I realize some of the assumptions I mentioned are out of the scope of science, but that's just it, this isn't solely a science question.

whether or not evolution is a good scientific explanation IS a solely scientific question.

 

[vossler]

that is not the same type of prediction i am talking about. a theory makes predictions about what evidence we should find. we then TEST THE PREDICTIONS. that is how we know whether they are right or not.

Predictions are still predictions and they are all based on evidence of some sort that pontificate unto an unknown. When a weatherman predicts the future we can check him out to test how reliable he is. When a scientist does the same regarding the past we will never be able to fully check it out. No one knows whether information known today can be accurately extrapolated into the distant past.

you mean you will ignore science over your fallible personal interpretation of a book written by men who claimed to be inspired by god.

So science is now infallible?

what's the difference? you weren't THERE at the murder scene either. thing that happen in the past leave traces that remain in the present. if we can't know about the distant past, are you saying we can't know that dinosaurs lived then? we find there bones, sure it's possible that they were planted there to deceive us, but it is far more reasonable to assume they belonged to animals that once lived. no one was THERE. no one has ever seen a dinosaur walking around. we still know it happened. to claim we can't know about the past through science is, quite frankly, stupid.

It's one thing to say three weeks ago I knew what happened, it's quite another to say 3 million years ago I knew that anything happened. If that makes me stupid, then stupid I am.

only if the methods are used incorrectly. creationists like to purposely use the methods incorrectly to try to show that they are giving inconsistent results. that is nothing more than total dishonesty. proper scientists who know what they are doing can produce accurate results that do correlate with each other.

Whenever the answer it is your looking for isn't presented then of course the method of testing was done incorrectly. Proper scientists know that in order for their findings to be acceptable they must correlate with one another.

correction: only falsifiable explanations are testable. this does not assume that a creator doesn't exist or that he didn't have anything to do with anything. we don't need to make assumptions about god to test our hypothesis. all we do is check to see if the evidence fits our predictions, and it does.

Are you saying that science accepts the possibility of a creator?

this has nothing to do with evolution either. you are talking about abiogenesis which is one theory on how life came into existence. evolution does not depend on abiogenesis in any way. evolution itself says nothing whatsoever about how life came into being. it could have been through abiogenesis, it could have been created by god, it could have been seeded by aliens... as far as evolution is concerned, it doesn't matter which of these is correct.

O.K. limit the scope from a living single cell animal to organize itself into ever increasing forms of life. The concept is the same, only the beginning changes.

that's not an assumption, it's an observation. we have directly observed many examples where mutation creates a new protien or something, and evolution selects for this new trait.

Have we observed where mutation creates new and increased complexity of form? They've done thousands of experiments with the fruit fly and in the end all they ever had was a fruit fly, mutated, transformed, even unrecognizable as a fly, but nonetheless a fly. So the assumption of new species development is just that, it has never been observed.

ah, here you're getting a little closer to the truth. we do assume that things like erosion would happen the same in the past as they do today. that seems like quite a reasonable assumption, don't you think?

Whether it is reasonable or not I'm not talking about, it is an assumption nonetheless.

So in the end the question is that as a non-expert I don't always accept the work of so called experts, especially when they don't reconcile themselves to the Word of God. I would appreciate their work much more if I felt the integrity and willingness to consider all options were taken into consideration. IMO, that is rarely done, especially in the field of evolutionary study.

 

[Loudmouth]

Predictions are still predictions and they are all based on evidence of some sort that pontificate unto an unknown. When a weatherman predicts the future we can check him out to test how reliable he is. When a scientist does the same regarding the past we will never be able to fully check it out. No one knows whether information known today can be accurately extrapolated into the distant past.

Baloney. Using the theory of evolution, scientists predict that you will never find a bunny rabbit in Cambrian strata. This is completely testable. You can also look at ERV patterns. Any ERV shared by humans and orangutans should also be shared between chimps and humans. This can be easily tested. Living species should not violate the nested hierarchies, such as a bat with feathers or a bird with teats. These are specific predictions that can be tested in the here and now.

So science is now infallible?

No, it is falsifiable. This is much better than a belief that is unverifiable and unfalsifiable.

It's one thing to say three weeks ago I knew what happened, it's quite another to say 3 million years ago I knew that anything happened. If that makes me stupid, then stupid I am.

I would never call you stupid. Stubborn comes to mind, but that also describes me.

We can observe things in today's world. For example, we observe that water boils at 100 degrees Celcius at 1 atmosphere of pressure. There is nothing in physics or chemistry that makes us doubt that this characteristic of water was different in the past. The same for every process seen in nature. For example, we see geologic formations forming today. We understand the physical mechanisms that create these formations, and have reproduced many of them in the lab. There is no reason to think that these same physical mechanisms were not active in the past, and finding evidence of their action allows a geologist to recreate ancient environments. We find ratios of isotopes in rocks that require millions of years to form. We see mountain ranges, such as the Hawaiian Archipelago, that require millions of years to form through hotspot vulcanism and plate tectonics. We see a string of fossils that split and develop derived characteristics, and those fossils fit into a nested hierarchy, just as the observed process of evolution does today.

Simply, observing today's world does allow one to recreate the past.

Proper scientists know that in order for their findings to be acceptable they must correlate with one another.

Not at all. They must explain why their findings differ, and support their conclusion with evidence.

Are you saying that science accepts the possibility of a creator?

Science accepts anything that is testable through methodological naturalism.

Have we observed where mutation creates new and increased complexity of form?

Yep. Hall's egb lactase system. Read about it here.

They've done thousands of experiments with the fruit fly and in the end all they ever had was a fruit fly, mutated, transformed, even unrecognizable as a fly, but nonetheless a fly.

Then why do you have a problem with human evolution? Humans and chimps are both primates, as is our common ancestor. It is just a primate turning into a primate.

So the assumption of new species development is just that, it has never been observed.

Speciation has been observed numerous times.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Whether it is reasonable or not I'm not talking about, it is an assumption nonetheless.

Speciation is a fact.

So in the end the question is that as a non-expert I don't always accept the work of so called experts, especially when they don't reconcile themselves to the Word of God.

Why the qualifier? I am an expert in my field and I disagree with many of the experts within my field. It's about evidence, not religious conviction.

I would appreciate their work much more if I felt the integrity and willingness to consider all options were taken into consideration. IMO, that is rarely done, especially in the field of evolutionary study.

Maybe you can take the first step and be willing to consider the Genesis account as an allegory instead of a literal history.

 

[caravelair]

Predictions are still predictions and they are all based on evidence of some sort that pontificate unto an unknown.

no, predictions are based on the theory itself. evidence allows us to test these predictions.

When a weatherman predicts the future we can check him out to test how reliable he is. When a scientist does the same regarding the past we will never be able to fully check it out.

not true. sometimes we may not be able to check, but others, we certainly can. for example, the prediction of evolution that all species must fit into a twin nested hierarchy. we most certainly can check this prediction. even a single example like a pegasus, or a minotaur or a centaur, or any other type of chimera, would instantly falsify evolution. yet of all the millions of species we have ever found, not one of them violates the nested hierarchy.

by the way, you forgot to tell me why this is so, if evolution is not true.

evolution makes many predictions that we can test. for an in depth read, it is really worth looking at this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

but it's a long read, so here's something shorter:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_science.html

No one knows whether information known today can be accurately extrapolated into the distant past.

we are not extrapolating, we are just making a comparison of predictions and observations. if the predictions of a theory turn out to be accurate, then we know our theory is pretty accurate. if any of the predictions are wrong, then the theory must be wrong. this is how we determine whether or not our theories about the past are accurate. so it's not true that "no one knows" just because they weren't there.

So science is now infallible?

no, it is not infallible. but it has a track record that proves it is a good method for investigating the natural world. at least science is testable.

It's one thing to say three weeks ago I knew what happened, it's quite another to say 3 million years ago I knew that anything happened.

what is the difference? where is the cutoff point exactly? 3 week? 2 months? a year? some evidence doesn't last very long. other evidence, like fossils, can. for example, we have found dinosaur bones from millions of years ago, therefore we can know that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.

Whenever the answer it is your looking for isn't presented then of course the method of testing was done incorrectly.

but that's not what i'm talking about. there are certain ways that certain methods of dating can be used, and certain ways they can't be used. for example, carbon dating can only be used on organic material from organisms that get their oxygen from an atmospheric source. most people don't know this, so creationists purposely use this method to date things like sea snails that they know very well do not get their carbon from the atmosphere, and therefore cannot be tested with this method accurately. so they come up with inaccurate results on purpose, by intentionally misusing the method whether they know it does not apply. this is only one example of their deception. there are other limitations of dating methods, for example the half-life of an isotope determines a specific range of ages for which a particular dating method can be accurate. carbon dating, for example, can only be used on samples up to about 50,000 years old, because at this point, there is too little of the isotope left to accurately measure it. a scientist who knows the limitations of a dating method can properly apply it to produce accurate results.

Proper scientists know that in order for their findings to be acceptable they must correlate with one another.

are you suggesting that they are all faking their results?

take a look at the first couple of tables in this article:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

they show several different and independant dating methods giving the same age for the same sample. how is it possible that they correlate if they are all giving the wrong ages?

i strongly suggest you read "radiometric dating, a christian perspective":

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Are you saying that science accepts the possibility of a creator?

of course! science accepts all possibilities until the have been falsified. unfortunately, the idea of a god cannot be tested or falsified by the scientific method, so we can't really use science to determine if there is a creator or not. we have to do that some other way.

O.K. limit the scope from a living single cell animal to organize itself into ever increasing forms of life. The concept is the same, only the beginning changes.

but evolution does account for that change, whereas it does not account for the origin of life itself.

Have we observed where mutation creates new and increased complexity of form?

yes, for example:

Predation was a powerful selective force promoting increased morphological complexity in a unicellular prey held in constant environmental conditions. The green alga, Chlorella vulgaris, is a well-studied eukaryote, which has retained its normal unicellular form in cultures in our laboratories for thousands of generations. For the experiments reported here, steady-state unicellular C. vulgaris continuous cultures were inoculated with the predator Ochromonas vallescia, a phagotrophic flagellated protist (lsquoflagellatersquo). Within less than 100 generations of the prey, a multicellular Chlorella growth form became dominant in the culture (subsequently repeated in other cultures). The prey Chlorella first formed globose clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. After about 10–20 generations in the presence of the phagotroph, eight-celled colonies predominated. These colonies retained the eight-celled form indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. These self-replicating, stable colonies were virtually immune to predation by the flagellate, but small enough that each Chlorella cell was exposed directly to the nutrient medium.

http://www.springerlink.com/(ioq5wx...rrer=parent&backto=searcharticlesresults,1,9;

They've done thousands of experiments with the fruit fly and in the end all they ever had was a fruit fly, mutated, transformed, even unrecognizable as a fly, but nonetheless a fly.

if you think that we should be expecting to see anything else, then you are wrong. evolution only changes species by modifying what's already there, and no scientist is claiming otherwise.

by the way, you might want to check out aron ra's thread about this subject:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2835971-one-thing-never-evolves-into-something-else.html

So the assumption of new species development is just that, it has never been observed.

the evolution of new species has been observed, many times, both in the lab and in the field. i can show you specific examples if you like. keep in mind, you can have a new species of fly evolve, and it is still a fly. "fly" is not a species, that is a much broader category. species is defined by whether the populations can interbreed or not.

Whether it is reasonable or not I'm not talking about, it is an assumption nonetheless.

but it's a reasonable assumption, so what's the problem? it's an assumption that has proven to be accurate too, because otherwise how do oil and mining companies always search for deposits using mainstream geology? they never ever use YEC geology, because they know it will not produce results. why do you suppose that is?

So in the end the question is that as a non-expert I don't always accept the work of so called experts, especially when they don't reconcile themselves to the Word of God.

to your personal interpretation of what is claimed to be the word of god. keep in mind, some of these experts are christian scientists who accept radiometric dating and evolution, and don't feel that it conflicts with the bible at all. they feel that god reveals his word through his creation.

I would appreciate their work much more if I felt the integrity and willingness to consider all options were taken into consideration.

science can only test things that are falsifiable. that is the only restriction. if an idea can't be tested by science, it doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means science can't be used to check if it's right OR wrong.

IMO, that is rarely done, especially in the field of evolutionary study.

how would you know? have you ever read a science journal? how would you know anything about the field of research? do you really think all those christian evolutionary biologists out there are not considering the possibility that a god exists? seriously now.

 

[vossler]

I would never call you stupid. Stubborn comes to mind, but that also describes me.

Yes, I do stubbornly hold onto what I know and resist things that make little to no sense.

Simply, observing today's world does allow one to recreate the past.

All I know is that forensic scientists have a hard enough time recreating a crime scene and for me to believe that other scientists can accurately recreate the distant past is a far greater assumption that I'm willing to entertain.

Not at all. They must explain why their findings differ, and support their conclusion with evidence.

I'll give you a recent example of how this can play out. The Korean scientist who stated he was successful, over two years ago, in cloning a human in the prestigious magazine Science. After this announcement everyone in the U.S. was clamouring for government aid in order that we wouldn't be left behind. Where was the peer review that was supposed to be done before any such findings are ever released? Why did it take almost two years before this was finally found to be a fraud? Obviously the evidence wasn't very strong, yet it was lauded by everyone.

Yep. Hall's egb lactase system. Read about it here.

Well as a non-scientist it isn't something I can grab a hold of. I'm sure if I looked hard enough I'd find someone to dispute those findings. The point is I've never seen it, nor have the vast majority of people.

Then why do you have a problem with human evolution? Humans and chimps are both primates, as is our common ancestor. It is just a primate turning into a primate.

Are you saying that since the beginning primates never were anything other than primates?

Speciation has been observed numerous times.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Speciation is a fact.

I looked at the links and to tell you the truth it was interesting to read, but I didn't leave it thinking to myself speciation does occur. I saw scientific explanations of experiments that were conducted that told of their findings. Somewhat interesting findings, but hardly convincing that speciation occurs, at least to me. Then again I'm a non-scientist living in the 21st century who like most people wants to see it himself before he believes it.

Why the qualifier? I am an expert in my field and I disagree with many of the experts within my field. It's about evidence, not religious conviction.

Without the qualifier of God I would have nothing. So to me the evidence comes second to what God has to say. Evidence can be misleading, but God isn't.

Maybe you can take the first step and be willing to consider the Genesis account as an allegory instead of a literal history.

I've taken the step of considering it already and haven't found myself willing to go further. There is nothing within the Bible itself that would lead me to believe that Genesis could be allegorical or mythical. The wording is too clear and simple in order for me to entertain such thoughts.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Yes, I do stubbornly hold onto what I know and resist things that make little to no sense.


one of the requirements for an elder in the church is teachability.

there is also something important about learning captured in the phrase "willing suspension of disbelief".

the idea is that in order to learning, in order to really listen, we need to open ourselves up and accept things without the normal filters against folly we have in place. after understanding what is said we go back over the material and look for things that clash with our systems. but to learn we need to really listen, which is almost the opposite of stubborn.

 

[vossler]

I'm not going to reply to the majority of your post for a couple of reasons. First of all I apologize for even going as far as it did with this discussion. My original intent was solely to make a point, but as these things usually go, it always goes back to the science. I have little to no background in science and am not qualified to argue the finer points thereof. Secondly and most importantly I have little to no faith in what much of evolutionary science produces because I believe it all to be a lie. Since I see it as a lie, I'm not about to spend a lot of time studying it or arguing its finer points.

to your personal interpretation of what is claimed to be the word of god. keep in mind, some of these experts are christian scientists who accept radiometric dating and evolution, and don't feel that it conflicts with the bible at all. they feel that god reveals his word through his creation.

I always find points like this to be rather humorous. My personal interpretation of the Bible, if I said that about science and it's findings you'd all jump on me and state otherwise. Well I see the Bible the same way, it doesn't contradict itself unless you allow it to. There is a proper method to study it and mine the truths within it, the problem is the vast majority of Christians hardly open it and yet will pontificate upon what it says. Kind of like YECs and evolution you might say.

how would you know? have you ever read a science journal? how would you know anything about the field of research? do you really think all those christian evolutionary biologists out there are not considering the possibility that a god exists? seriously now.

No I don't read science journals and to tell you the truth I'm not much interested in them. I do know this that the number of Christian biologists is less than the number who aren't. I base that upon Gallup polls that have been conducted which show that only 45% of scientists believe in God. From that, as a Christian using the Bible, one can see that of those 45% only half at best are true to their faith. So this then tells me at best 20% of scientists are Christian. Then of those a highly significant percentage are evolutionists. That doesn't leave a lot left for those that believe the Bible as it is written.

So what are they all seeking? IMO, for many it is fame and $$$.

 

[Valkhorn]

Secondly and most importantly I have little to no faith in what much of evolutionary science produces because I believe it all to be a lie.

Seeing as how you won't research it and you don't know what evolution is about, I don't think you're making a very wise decision there.

You're basically saying that no matter what you're going to be willfully ignorant and refuse to learn anything that is against your preconcieved notions - no matter how wrong you might be.

 

[vossler]

one of the requirements for an elder in the church is teachability.

Believe me I'm teachable, I've read more about the lie of evolution than I care to admit. I'm always willing to read another article or listen to another argument. Both of which I've been doing in this thread.

the idea is that in order to learning, in order to really listen, we need to open ourselves up and accept things without the normal filters against folly we have in place. after understanding what is said we go back over the material and look for things that clash with our systems. but to learn we need to really listen, which is almost the opposite of stubborn.

I can't say I necessarily agree with this. My biblical filter will always be up, God tells us we should be doing just that. I will agree with the theme that in order to learn one must really listen, but that isn't necessarily the opposite of being stubborn. It all depends upon what one is stubborn about.

 

[JohnR7]

He said he reached over the rail in a museum and scratched one of the fossil displays -already convinced that it couldn't be real, and discovered it was made of dental plaster. When I tried to explain to him why plaster casts are often used, he said I was just making up excuses as an attempted cover-up.

I am told that it is very rare to find ALL of the bones. So science does their best to fill in the missing parts. I think they do a pretty hodge podge job of it and their theory are even worse in comparison.

When you consider that we only know 1 to 3 percent, then even if their theorys were better constructed, it is based on so little of information so as to be just about worthless.