The speed of light, stars, and YEC?

[Statler Waldorf]

Just because there are allegedly aspects of Genesis that are figurative, does not necessitate that all parts of the story are indeed figurative (i.e. the fall).

Cherry-Picking to the nth degree. I'll bet your fucking god told you which are literal and which are figurative, too. Personally spoke to you, I imagine.

No, I actually believe in a literal interpretation (which doesn’t mean what most people think it means) of the whole thing, I was just pointing out Deist's logical misstep.

[Voltair]

Stalter, just because Richard Dawkins said evolution is a complete 100% undeniable fact does not mean everyone who supports it believes the same thing. If someone on here makes a claim that they don't believe it can be known 100% then saying they think it is a reasonable possibility is definitely consistent and logical.

Attacking people for saying that would be like me quoting William Lane Craig and saying "See Christians ultimately would never give up beliefs even in light of contradictory evidence". That is basically in his book called Reasonable Faith just in case you think I am misrepresenting him.

As far as representations of intelligence producing intelligence how does that necessitate a deity who simply speaks things into existence?

Even if we have no representation of intelligence being produced without intelligence we most certainly don't have direct evidence of a supernatural being speaking matter into existence.

That would be impossible to measure scientifically anyway as God is said to be non-physical and undetectable by material means. Perhaps you disagree with that statement and I am curious as to why if you do.

You did mention that you believe creationism is scientific could you be more specific as to how you think it is? I am not trying to be insulting but I am not familiar with all the intricacies of your reasoning so I was hoping you would be willing to clarify.

[Statler Waldorf]

Stalter, just because Richard Dawkins said evolution is a complete 100% undeniable fact does not mean everyone who supports it believes the same thing. If someone on here makes a claim that they don't believe it can be known 100% then saying they think it is a reasonable possibility is definitely consistent and logical.

Sure but that’s not exactly what he said is it? He said that only “religious loons” would say such things. So my point was the Dawkins says such things and I doubt many believe he is a religious loon.

Attacking people for saying that would be like me quoting William Lane Craig and saying "See Christians ultimately would never give up beliefs even in light of contradictory evidence". That is basically in his book called Reasonable Faith just in case you think I am misrepresenting him.

If I had made some statement about only atheist loons are the ones who won’t ever give up their beliefs and you came back with this example of WLC, I would consider it a point well made. That was my point about Dawkins, not only “religious loons” believe certain things are established facts that cannot even be called into question.

As far as representations of intelligence producing intelligence how does that necessitate a deity who simply speaks things into existence?

Well its intelligences generating information, not other intelligences. That being said though, it doesn’t necessitate any such deity, that’s why many in the ID movement believe in other theories such as panspermia. It does not necessitate God, but it is evidence that is in complete harmony with the idea of God.

Even if we have no representation of intelligence being produced without intelligence we most certainly don't have direct evidence of a supernatural being speaking matter into existence.

Scripture is direct evidence of such events. The information theory point I made is just a good way to destroy evolutionary theory as a possibility because it completely defies what we observe to be the case. There are other ways we can move from a generic intelligence to the God of scripture.

That would be impossible to measure scientifically anyway as God is said to be non-physical and undetectable by material means. Perhaps you disagree with that statement and I am curious as to why if you do.

Well not all truth claims are discerned scientifically; in fact you can make a great case that no truth claims are. However, science itself is built upon assumptions that presuppose the existence of God. Without God science itself would be impossible, so in a roundabout way it does help support His existence. I agree with you that God is not detectible by some scientific instrument or process, but we are to know of Him through the things that are made, which takes us back to the information argument.

You did mention that you believe creationism is scientific could you be more specific as to how you think it is? I am not trying to be insulting but I am not familiar with all the intricacies of your reasoning so I was hoping you would be willing to clarify.

I am starting to think you are far too polite to be on this forum, it’s a bit refreshing actually.

Well there are certain aspects of Creation Science that fall under historical sciences. SO this would be more along the lines of paleontology, archeology, evolutionary biology and the forensic sciences. Since you cannot directly observe events taking place in the past you must examine certain lines of evidences and make inferences to the best possible explanations. Creation scientists do this with the fossil record, the distribution of life on Earth, etc. There are certain aspects of Creation Science that are also empirically sound (direct observation and repeatability), they will propose hypothesis and test it empirically in the lab, we saw this with C14 in diamonds and coal. Then there are aspects of Creation Science that are more philosophical in nature since it is also closely tied to Theology. So it’s a very complete discipline.

[Erinome]

Evolution is a fact, and those who choose to deny it are denying a fact.

The laws of nature may not align with your absurd and offensive belief that the earth is only 6000 or so years old, but that's because your beliefs are wrong. It really pisses me off when creationists take all of the beauty and splendor away from nature by saying a universe so complex and beautiful was created in 6 days by a bigoted, disgusting, egotistical, pathetic deity. "Goddidit" is not a fucking answer, it's something people made up a long time ago because they had no real answers.

The bible has nothing to do with science. Take it from a student of astrophysics and anthropology. There is a reason "Intelligent Design" isn't even discussed at reputable universities. The reason is that those universities wish to remain reputable.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEl9kVl6KPc

[Voltair]

Sure but that’s not exactly what he said is it? He said that only “religious loons” would say such things. So my point was the Dawkins says such things and I doubt many believe he is a religious loon.

If I had made some statement about only atheist loons are the ones who won’t ever give up their beliefs and you came back with this example of WLC, I would consider it a point well made. That was my point about Dawkins, not only “religious loons” believe certain things are established facts that cannot even be called into question.

I will agree that anyone regardless of where they stand on issues of religion can cover their ears and scream in the face of information that contradicts their ideas. I see a lot of people getting pissed on the forum and I think its because they get tired of arguing the same ideas over and over again without people seeming to budge on their positions.

Again I am an atheist so I happen to agree with many people on those positions but hey it is what it is

Well its intelligences generating information, not other intelligences. That being said though, it doesn’t necessitate any such deity, that’s why many in the ID movement believe in other theories such as panspermia. It does not necessitate God, but it is evidence that is in complete harmony with the idea of God.

Evidence that could potentially be in harmony with the idea of deity is fine. A higher power is not something I or anyone can prove is an absolute impossibility. I doubt it is actually true but many atheists understand that it is not a 100% given. Without it being more reliable than potentially compatible I don't really see how it will add much to figuring out what is actually true.

Scripture is direct evidence of such events. The information theory point I made is just a good way to destroy evolutionary theory as a possibility because it completely defies what we observe to be the case. There are other ways we can move from a generic intelligence to the God of scripture.

I would agree that scripture could potentially be a recording of the events but I do not think it is trustworthy on those matters. To be fair I think that the Bible does hold actual historical facts inside of it just as other books of theology very well may as well.

You and I may disagree on the Bible's theological claims but I have a feeling you and I would agree that we both distrust the religious claims of other ancient documents. You and I probably accept some historical information but probably easily discard the religious ones.

Let's take Genesis for example. I believe according to tradition it is believed that Moses wrote Genesis. Assuming that the earth is let's say 10,000 years old Moses wrote about an event that happened at least 3,000 or so years in the past. The only way he could know of those events would be 1) Oral tradition passed down for thousands of years, 2) writings passed down for thousands of years, 3) some kind of divine inspiration, or 4) any other possibilities I omitted.

Oral tradition for thousands of years is problematic due to the issue of reliability. The assumption would be it was preserved accurately and the same with ancient writings. The issue of divine inspiration for Genesis I have been curious about as well. I am not sure how you would decide that Genesis was divinely inspired besides the fact that it was in the Torah and preserved for some time. Again you probably have an answer for that so before I go into that more I will let you give it.

For right now I will not go into the New Testament because that would be an even longer post so lets work with this for now.

Well not all truth claims are discerned scientifically; in fact you can make a great case that no truth claims are. However, science itself is built upon assumptions that presuppose the existence of God. Without God science itself would be impossible, so in a roundabout way it does help support His existence. I agree with you that God is not detectible by some scientific instrument or process, but we are to know of Him through the things that are made, which takes us back to the information argument.

I am not trying to be insulting but saying that science is built on the assumption that God exists seems to be unsubstantiated. With what you believe of course science is based on the existence of God. Based on what I do not believe though it most certainly is not. Making that statement does not prove anything other than what you believe to be true as quantifying how science is based on God seems to be a matter of theology and philosophy.

As far as truth being able to be arrived at through other means I agree with you to an extent. Philosophy has been a great thing for humanity throughout the years and much progress has been made from earlier times. There is still a lot of work to be done in many places of the world but at least the entire world isn't under the crushing finger of dictators/monsters anymore.

I remember the teleological argument being used in Romans where Paul said God's power and even eternal Godhead are seen and understood by the things that are made. Now I obviously do not believe that the Bible is inspired so Paul just stating that means very little to me. However I am curious as to how God is simply evident through creation. If that were true and I for whatever reason do not see that to be true what does that leave? In my mind that leaves several alternatives: 1) I am being deceived, 2) I am willing not accepting the evidence, 3) It isn't true, and of course 4) something else I potentially didn't put down .

I can assure you I have been honest in what I have looked at but I also understand at a certain point people inside of Christianity may have to assume I am being somehow deceptive/in denial. It is either attacking me or attacking a being who supposedly can do no evil so I will get the ax. It doesn't offend me because that's the logical path one probably has to take in order to remain consistent with Christian beliefs.

I am starting to think you are far too polite to be on this forum, it’s a bit refreshing actually.

If I start yelling at you it will potentially turn into a ragefest where no one learns much of anything, where no one is convinced, and where almost everyone's time is wasted. Although reading discussions such as these where ragefests did occur did help but it would have been better without having to sift through all the bullets, explosions, and intestines .

Well there are certain aspects of Creation Science that fall under historical sciences. SO this would be more along the lines of paleontology, archeology, evolutionary biology and the forensic sciences. Since you cannot directly observe events taking place in the past you must examine certain lines of evidences and make inferences to the best possible explanations. Creation scientists do this with the fossil record, the distribution of life on Earth, etc. There are certain aspects of Creation Science that are also empirically sound (direct observation and repeatability), they will propose hypothesis and test it empirically in the lab, we saw this with C14 in diamonds and coal. Then there are aspects of Creation Science that are more philosophical in nature since it is also closely tied to Theology. So it’s a very complete discipline.

What exactly have creation scientists done with the fossil record? I am assuming you have read a decent bit on this so I would ask you to summarize if possible. I won't really talk about the philosophy/theology again right now because I am partially tired of typing and my reply is also getting far too large.

[Zen Badger]

And not one of them worth pissing on

Well opinions won’t get you far in science, if the math works with the models then the models are valid, which it does indeed work.

'If the math works" you keep saying that but you've never shown how it works.

BTW, how's your ASC holding up? I have a refutation for that, in the very discovery that revealed that lightspeed was not infinite as previously thought.

Holding up just fine actually.

You think so? Then look at this......
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&...KGK2VDqFYA

To keep it simple for you, in 1676 Ole Roemer, by observing the transit of Io behind Jupiter calculated when it should reappear, then demonstrated that the times differed depending on where Earth was in its orbit. This showed that light was taking longer to get to Earth the further away from Jupiter it was. Therefore proving that contrary to previous belief c was not infinite.

And, incidentally, shooting ASC stone cold dead before it was even born.

No, they are theological only, we have yet to see any scientific basis for your bullshit.

Creationism is not based on science!
Yes it is, they have plenty of scientific evidence.
That’s not scientific evidence.
Why not?
Because Creationism is not based on science!

You are the king of the circular argument, did you know that?

Don't put words in my mouth, that is extremely bad manners, even for you.

Where is your "scientific evidence" for creationism? where is it, cos all I've seen is ridiculous canards like ASC and continental drift happening at thousands of miles an hour. And no-one with even the faintest understanding of basic physics could ever take either seriously.

I might be able to see if I understood how a metaphoric fall from grace would work. Can you help me out here?

It works because it keeps the sheep feeling guilty just for being alive and therefore so much easier to manipulate.

[stephensalias]

was my question on page 2 unworthy or too difficult?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

These religion and science debates are fascinating to me. A poster above mentioned that our physical laws show no evidence of changing. Given that, and the law of entropy, how does any model of cosmology make sense? The chain of events that produced life is infinitely ordered. It is so ordered, in fact, that it produced a self ordering human race. Not only that, but the order can be seen even at microscopic levels. How does one account for this scientifically?

Given that the physical laws show no evidence of changing and the law of entropy, there's not really anything that renders life unable to form and propogate as it has on the Earth.

You might want to explain how this is supposed to be impossible. If you're trying the "2nd law of thermodynamics" arguement, you would be right, because the Earth's energy would bleed out into space until the surface reaches a nearly absolute zero temperature (or whatever the temperature of the surrounding space is). However, The earth is not a closed system. It receives a huge amount of energy from the sun and help from gravity, chemistry, cosmic rays, errant objects, and things of that nature that combine to allow a habitable biosphere on the surface of the earth. Even that's not guarenteed, however. (See: Venus and Mars.)

Thanks to entropy, however, this is only a temporary situation.

[Anymouse]

These religion and science debates are fascinating to me. A poster above mentioned that our physical laws show no evidence of changing. Given that, and the law of entropy, how does any model of cosmology make sense? The chain of events that produced life is infinitely ordered. It is so ordered, in fact, that it produced a self ordering human race. Not only that, but the order can be seen even at microscopic levels. How does one account for this scientifically?

What is viewed as "order" may in fact only be a perception. "Order" (such as a star forming, or animals) brings about entropy (ultimate decay) much faster (stars becoming degenerate, black holes, etc; animals processing resources much faster). Order therefore can be defined as a vehicle to achieve entropy, or disorder, fnord.

Benoit Mandelbrot, pondering the question of how sand dunes create such ordered rows from seemingly random grains of sand, or shapes of beaches doing the same, or the apparent fractal shape of tree branches and roots, developed a mathematical model to show this (the Mandelbrot Set - see Wikipedia for the fascinating way Mandelbrot hijacked IBM for his own research, and the very simple equation that came out of his study).

Posters of the Set are available at fine head shops everywhere, but essentially it shows how seemingly random objects will form an ordered solution. Mandelbrot's theory works well to show order (in this case abiogenesis) can arise from any random set (random non-living molecules).

Hail Eris. All Hail Discordia. Hell Yes.

[stephensalias]

I appreciate the kind replies. many thanks.