Why should any more time be spent here?

[Beastt]

For those who do not believe that God did it but believe that "science knows how it was done without God being involved" and tries to get Christians to put away their Bibles which is their source of life for eternity and turn instead to a pack of science books which keep changing as often as our socks -well that would be as likely as a 75 million year old fossill of t-rex being found with soft tissue still in it's bones

Another poster here asked you for an example of a major change in any widely accepted scientific theory in the past 200 years. Instead of citing an example, you continue to proclaim that such changes in science are frequent. You asked me for examples of errors in the Bible and I provided them. Why are you not willing to support your statements while challenging everyone else to support theirs? Unsupported statements aren't going to change anyone's mind. If you have support for them, then please offer it. If you don't, then perhaps the other posters aren't the ones who should be learning from that.

Closing your eyes and ears while reciting your beliefs over and over won't do anyone else any good, nor will it allow you to learn anything. And it's certainly not a practice one should take pride in.

I realize that you are of the minority opinion on this thread and that is unfortunate. It makes it terribly difficult for you to respond to all of the other posters. But I've been involved in other discussions with those who hold beliefs similar to yours and they did, at least try, to support their statements. Perhaps in the near future, another who supports your views will find the thread and assist you, not just in responding to everyone, but in offering something of support to the statements you keep repeating without validation.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

In the C&E forum? I am considering retiring from debating C&E. My mind is made up concerning this area. Why do any of you continue on if your mind is made up? Really, it's kind of silly. You're combatting the four items I outlined about problems committed over and over and over and over by YECists.

Why continue?!

I'm surprised at this coming from you of all people!

The difference between you and other creationists in C&E after you had been here a while was that you started asking honest questions rather than simply copying and pasting from creationist websites or making bald assertions as we see often here. If only creationists posted here, there would be no honest answers given to those asking honest questions. And that might have affected you directly because this place and answers to your questions surely had at least some small effect on you over the past year (granted, you can't learn everything on a message board, nor should people try to). Surely there are other people with honest questions looking for honest answers, even if they are just lurking and not contributing.

Other reasons include what has already been said by folks like Jet. You get used to being around the people here and enjoy the discussions, both reading and contributing, so that makes it a good learning environment as well. Science, and in particular geology, has been my field of study and interest, so that also keeps me here. Furthermore, someone has to provide a voice of reasoned dissent otherwise it would just be ignorance being congratulated and encouraged.

 

[A4C]

Another poster here asked you for an example of a major change in any widely accepted scientific theory in the past 200 years. Instead of citing an example, you continue to proclaim that such changes in science are frequent. You asked me for examples of errors in the Bible and I provided them. Why are you not willing to support your statements while challenging everyone else to support theirs? Unsupported statements aren't going to change anyone's mind. If you have support for them, then please offer it. If you don't, then perhaps the other posters aren't the ones who should be learning from that.

Closing your eyes and ears while reciting your beliefs over and over won't do anyone else any good, nor will it allow you to learn anything. And it's certainly not a practice one should take pride in.

Your "sample" of error did not stand up to scrutiny and you dropped it as soon as it was shown that it was you in error not the Bible

 

[Sinai]

as far as i know, there has been no widely accepted scientific theory in the last 200 years that has turned out to be totally wrong. if you can think of an example, i'd like to hear it.

Until about 80 years ago, the steady state theory (which asserted that the universe had no beginning, but rather had always existed) was widely accepted in the scientific community. When physicist Georges Lemaitre proposed that the universe had originated in a primeval atom, many scientists dismissed the primeval atom theory as being merely an attempt by a former priest to explain a religious statement (Genesis 1:1's assertion that there was a beginning point for our universe) in scientific terms. It was one of the critics (Fred Hoyle, a leading proponent of the steady state theory) who derisively referred to the primeval atom theory as "the big bang theory"--and the name stuck.

But Edwin Hubble's discovery of the red shift in 1927 caused many scientists to rethink their position on this issue, and Lemaitre's theory began to be considered as a possible alternative to the steady state theory. The development and deployment of the atomic bomb caused more scientists to consider the big bang theory. But it was not until the Arno Penzias-Robert Wilson discovery of the cosmic background radiation that the big bang theory became almost universally accepted by scientists.

 

[Beastt]

Your "sample" of error did not stand up to scrutiny and you dropped it as soon as it was shown that it was you in error not the Bible

This not only lacks any substantiative substance, but the proof that you're incorrect is recorded in the pages of the thread. Not only did I not drop the examples of errors, I repeated them and expanded on them.

Would you be compelled into reconsidering your beliefs by someone who did nothing but repeat statements while offering nothing to support them? Would you find a need to re-examine your beliefs if someone claimed that you were retreating from points you had made when indeed, you had continued to back those points? If not, then why would you expect others to be compelled by such tactics?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

For those who do not believe that God did it but believe that "science knows how it was done without God being involved"

You are being vague. While you can guess that god was the first cause, it is still just a guess. Science is not going to tell you anything without evidence. So your god guess is safe from refutation in the gap of knowledge called first cause. No scientist will tell you otherwise.

If you are referring to god making everything exactly as we see it today then you are in error. Just because someone told you that god did it and threatened you with eternal suffering if you didn’t believe their assertion on faith alone doesn’t mean it’s even close to being right.

and tries to get Christians to put away their Bibles which is their source of life for eternity

Is this the reason you shun scientific knowledge? Are you simply afraid that if you don’t believe in the inerrant word of the bible you will go to hell? Are your assertions based on nothing more than fear?

and turn instead to a pack of science books which keep changing as often as our socks

If science changes it is for the better. It’s because of new evidence or new knowledge. People that understand science understand this. It is why science is more trustworthy. Most theists understand this and reinterpret their bible once it is painfully obvious their previous interpretation was wrong. Only those too brainwashed or too fearful cling to the absurdity of a literal interpretation.

-well that would be as likely as a 75 million year old fossill of t-rex being found with soft tissue still in it's bones

And yet… http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

 

[Beastt]

Until about 80 years ago, the steady state theory (which asserted that the universe had no beginning, but rather had always existed) was widely accepted in the scientific community. When physicist Georges Lemaitre proposed that the universe had originated in a primeval atom, many scientists dismissed the primeval atom theory as being merely an attempt by a former priest to explain a religious statement (Genesis 1:1's assertion that there was a beginning point for our universe) in scientific terms. It was one of the critics (Fred Hoyle, a leading proponent of the steady state theory) who derisively referred to the primeval atom theory as "the big bang theory"--and the name stuck.

But Edwin Hubble's discovery of the red shift in 1927 caused many scientists to rethink their position on this issue, and Lemaitre's theory began to be considered as a possible alternative to the steady state theory. The development and deployment of the atomic bomb caused more scientists to consider the big bang theory. But it was not until the Arno Penzias-Robert Wilson discovery of the cosmic background radiation that the big bang theory became almost universally accepted by scientists.

Thank you for this, Sinai. This is the kind of thing that lends credibility to statements while simply repeating them tends to detract from any credibility. It's a very interesting piece of information. I wouldn't be surprised if the Big Bang theory continues to undergo changes, perhaps even complete abandonment. I think that as a theory it is good enough to present a working model as a starting point from which to move forward. Error is certainly a significant portion of "trial and error". But that is not to say that a trial and error method isn't productive. It is not uncommon in any scientifically approached undertaking to start from what ever hypothesis seems least likely to fall to challenge, then continue to challenge it until it does fall or at least, requires some significant adjustment. But this is how we learn. It is a necessary part of the scientific method which has shown through the continual successes of science to be a practical and fruitful road to discovery and subsequent discovery. Science must always acknowledge that changes will be necessary and that no accepted theory should be expected to stand unchanged forever. But for anyone to suggest that science has not had a very significant level of success or that everything we know of science is some kind of farce, upon which no basis of accuracy can be found is simply a denial of the facts and of the civilized world around them.

 

[nvxplorer]

It is backed up by the Word of God. Would you mind explaining why you think the Word of God is unsubstantiated

I just spoke to God, and he told me you're wrong. Get over it.

By the way, he wanted me to tell you to stop capitalizing non-proper nouns. God knows who he is; he doesn't need to see the word "he" capitalized to realize who you're talking about. He suggested a refresher English course for you.

 

[nvxplorer]

It is scientifically impossible that "bangs" (no matter how big) or soup produce the complexities of the life forms that inhabit the earth.

William Hung and Campbell's would disagree.

 

[A4C]

I just spoke to God, and he told me you're wrong. Get over it.

By the way, he wanted me to tell you to stop capitalizing non-proper nouns. God knows who he is; he doesn't need to see the word "he" capitalized to realize who you're talking about. He suggested a refresher English course for you.

I just spoke to God and He told me that you were not speaking to Him at all and that you were actually speaking to another god.

 

[maha]

I think that when evolutionists argue with creationists that it just gives the creationists more incentive to hold their position. It's far easier to defend an argument than it is to fortify it. So when we challenge creationists, we are enabling them to do just that--defend their belief.

We would be better off by teaching the practical benefitis of evolutinary theory as oppossed to trashing creationism. The only people that are willing to defend it to the end are those that would never change their minds anyway. So yeah, why bother arguing with them.

 

[nvxplorer]

I just spoke to God and He told me that you were not speaking to Him at all and that you were actually speaking to another god.

Something seems to be evading you.

Let's cut to the chase.

Me: No, you're wrong
You: No, YOU'RE wrong.
Me: NO, you are absolutely wrong.
You: No, no, no...you are wrong.

(with fingers firmly in ears)
You and I: I can't hear you...

 

[nvxplorer]

I think that when evolutionists argue with creationists that it just gives the creationists more incentive to hold their position. It's far easier to defend an argument than it is to fortify it. So when we challenge creationists, we are enabling them to do just that--defend their belief.

We would be better off by teaching the practical benefitis of evolutinary theory as oppossed to trashing creationism. The only people that are willing to defend it to the end are those that would never change their minds anyway. So yeah, why bother arguing with them.

Good points, and I sometimes wonder how creationists would react if every non-creationist suddenly just agreed with them.

 

[A4C]

.

And yet… http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

Here you have an example of the tripe that is served up to a gullible public
Here it was stated that the soft tissue was in a 70 m yo dino. Well did they do dating on it If so by whom and was that confirmed by another lab After all could you imagine how incredible the find is that you could preserve flesh for 70 million years WoW even the egyptians couldn't do that and they put some intelligence to it Even today you would having trouble finding a scientist who could guarantee any more than a few hundred

 

[A4C]

Here you have an example of the tripe that is served up to a gullible public
Here it was stated that the soft tissue was in a 70 m yo dino. Well did they do dating on it If so by whom and was that confirmed by another lab After all could you imagine how incredible the find is that you could preserve flesh for 70 million years WoW even the egyptians couldn't do that and they put some intelligence to it Even today you would having trouble finding a scientist who could guarantee any more than a few hundred

Hands up those who think that dating was done and it was found that it was about 4500 years old or about the time of the flood

 

[nvxplorer]

It's quite telling that you find a need to reply to your own posts, A4C. Your motive is clear. It's not about truth, science, religion or God. It's all about you, A4C. Congratulations. Take a bow. You are supreme.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Here you have an example of the tripe that is served up to a gullible public

Here it was stated that the soft tissue was in a 70 m yo dino. Well did they do dating on it If so by whom and was that confirmed by another lab After all could you imagine how incredible the find is that you could preserve flesh for 70 million years WoW even the egyptians couldn't do that and they put some intelligence to it Even today you would having trouble finding a scientist who could guarantee any more than a few hundred

In the end, it will be tested over and over. There are scientists salivating over just trying to debunk this find. The scientific method has built in checks and balances for every new finding and theory. Meanwhile, you accept what someone has told you without any evidence. You accept things you are told on blind faith. You accept what you are told in spite of evidence to the contrary. At the same time, you demand mountains of tests and cross examinations for every scientific finding. Then when you get it you postulate some kind of evil conspiracy. This double standard is baffling and can only make sense in the light of theistic brainwashing.

 

[A4C]

In the end, it will be tested over and over. There are scientists salivating over just trying to debunk this find. The scientific method has built in checks and balances for every new finding and theory. Meanwhile, you accept what someone has told you without any evidence. You accept things you are told on blind faith. You accept what you are told in spite of evidence to the contrary. At the same time, you demand mountains of tests and cross examinations for every scientific finding. Then when you get it you postulate some kind of evil conspiracy. This double standard is baffling and can only make sense in the light of theistic brainwashing.

Then you tell me why it was said to be 70 m yo if there was no proof

 

[Grengor]

Why it was said to be 70myo? Hmmmm...maybe radiometric dating of multiple bones? Oh yea, the tissue wasn't actual "tissue" per say, it was fossilization on a molecular scale, the "molds" of the structures were preserved, not the original tissue.

 

[And-U-Say]

Hey I like your analogy based on the fact that this is "OUR PLAYING FIELD and you are the joe who thinks you can tell US how to play ball. Just keep an eye on the series and find out who wins. eh?

Perhaps you didn't realize that it is you who are the joe off the street. Saying you know more about biology than biologists. Your posts are the epitome of the problem.