The speed of light, stars, and YEC?

[Statler Waldorf]

The problem of scientific nature is what neurological malfunction could it be for there to still be "theology" after the bronze age.

That’s actually kind of funny, if you’re an Evolutionist you’d have to believe that Humans developed a belief in God because it provided some sort of survival advantage. So being an atheist would actually make you a bit of an evolutionary throw back.

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?

Be careful, this board doesn’t do well with such difficult questions. You might be better off asking them why they think God is a big meanie-face.

Stalter, what exactly is your position on the earth then? Do you not believe in YEC? I am not trying to attack you just trying to understand what your exact position is.

I am a YEC.

Again Stalter I don't want to make false assumptions but you clearly do not believe evolution represents good science. Are you a proponent of Intelligent Design Science? If I am not mistaken one of the criticisms of evolution is the idea that you can't design an experiment to prove evolution per say.

Creationists I suppose do believe in Intelligent Design, but I prefer the Creation movement over the ID movement as a whole because the ID movement has trouble explaining imperfections that we observe, creationists do not. There are some great minds that are part of the ID movement that are also creationists, even though most of them are “old-earthers”. The greatest thing the ID movement did was point out some of the intellectual fraud and dishonesty that was involved with teaching Evolution. It created a whole dialogue about whether the theory was really all it was cracked up to be. So for that, I give them kudos.

Assuming that is true though you can definitely not design an experiment to prove intelligent design either. Wouldn't that also necessitate you criticizing intelligent design scientifically? I have never understood why Intelligent Design, which cannot experimentally test for anything, contributes much to the discussion. I am not heavily invested in either of the ideas yet so for me there is a third alternative namely that we don't know yet.

I don’t believe that is the chief objection the ID movement has towards evolution. I think their objection is that all the observed cases we have of information arising are only from an intelligent mind, yet we belief that the greatest wealth of information the world has ever known somehow arose and built itself by natural means? That’s a better and more powerful objection to the theory.

You’re trying to apply logic to creationists?! I see where you went wrong there….

Why?

As to evolution, there is metric fucktons of evidence out there. Many experiments to prove it is in fact possible.

How is proving something is “possible” proof that it actually happened? (I object to your assertion that it has been proven to be even possible though, all the experiments that make this claim sneak intelligence in through the back door one way or another).

Now I’m not saying evolution is a fact or 100% defiantly the way it happened. That would be foolish, nobody apart from religious loons claim absolute knowledge.

Oh really? “Evolution is a fact” – Richard Dawkins, Washington Post (08/23/2011)

But don’t take my word for, go forth and read! Come to your own conclusion, that’s the point of science. It doesn’t need to try and “convert” people, science is just there, the information and experimental results are there. Read them, think about it, then make your own mind up based on what you have found.

We agree on something.

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.

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.

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?

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

I think he is pointing out the fact you are committing a composition fallacy. 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).