Statler Waldorf introduction.

[LastPoet]

I guess the whole plants before the light, the woman out of a rib, talking snakes, etc is to be taken literally?

I spent time as a Math and Science Teacher at the high school level.

I don't know about everyone else, but this statment gave me the chills. At the same time, reminds me of Kent Hovind, somehow...

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Nah I disagree. There are lots of young Earth guys doing good work in the fields of Biology and Geology. Evidence is interpreted using a Worldview, there is no real evidence that conflicts with the Biblical view of Creation because evidence itself doesn't say anything. I feel the Biblical view of Creation is the most consistant view when all the evidence is taken into consideration.

That's kind of the thing - creationists tend to think that evidence has to be interpreted according to a worldview - like the christian worldview, the jewish worldview, the naturalist/atheist worldview, etc. Scientists shape their worldview based on evidence.

As Adrian pointed out, when evidence doesn't fit a scientist's pre-establishd view of things, that view changes according to new evidence, assuming it is substantiated through peer review and the scientific process. For example, the discovery of the first dinosaur fossils and other prehistoric fossils in addition to the study of the relationship between all life on earth led to Evolutoinary Theory - not the other way around.

This is why virtually all reputable biologists don't believe in, for example, Y-E creationism. It directly contradicts the science of the field. The same goes for astronomy and Y-E creationism because the laws of physics absolutely refute the idea that the earth or the universe is less than many billions of years old.

Thats why I would never feel comfortable with, for example, a Y-E creationist teaching physics, astronomy, or biology, among other sciences. The two schools of thought are utterly conflicted with one another.

[Statler Waldorf]

I guess the whole plants before the light, the woman out of a rib, talking snakes, etc is to be taken literally?

I spent time as a Math and Science Teacher at the high school level.

I don't know about everyone else, but this statment gave me the chills. At the same time, reminds me of Kent Hovind, somehow...

Well it doesn't say "rib" it says "side". Plants before sun, but not before light.

Not sure why it would give you the chills. My classes scored in the top 5th percentile in the entire State and even higher nationally. 45 percent of my class went on to have full ride academic scholarships for their University studies. Those numbers give me chills, but in the good way.

[Shell B]

Not sure why it would give you the chills. My classes scored in the top 5th percentile in the entire State and even higher nationally. 45 percent of my class went on to have full ride academic scholarships for their University studies. Those numbers give me chills, but in the good way.

Just out of curiosity, is your shift button stuck?

[Statler Waldorf]

Nah I disagree. There are lots of young Earth guys doing good work in the fields of Biology and Geology. Evidence is interpreted using a Worldview, there is no real evidence that conflicts with the Biblical view of Creation because evidence itself doesn't say anything. I feel the Biblical view of Creation is the most consistant view when all the evidence is taken into consideration.

That's kind of the thing - creationists tend to think that evidence has to be interpreted according to a worldview - like the christian worldview, the jewish worldview, the naturalist/atheist worldview, etc. Scientists shape their worldview based on evidence.

As Adrian pointed out, when evidence doesn't fit a scientist's pre-establishd view of things, that view changes according to new evidence, assuming it is substantiated through peer review and the scientific process. For example, the discovery of the first dinosaur fossils and other prehistoric fossils in addition to the study of the relationship between all life on earth led to Evolutoinary Theory - not the other way around.

This is why virtually all reputable biologists don't believe in, for example, Y-E creationism. It directly contradicts the science of the field. The same goes for astronomy and Y-E creationism because the laws of physics absolutely refute the idea that the earth or the universe is less than many billions of years old.

Thats why I would never feel comfortable with, for example, a Y-E creationist teaching physics, astronomy, or biology, among other sciences. The two schools of thought are utterly conflicted with one another.

Well bigotry is wrong no matter who it is against, even Creationists.

Evidence cannot be interpreted without presuppositions. Presuppostions come directly from Worldviews. Hence why you can show a first grade student all the radiometric evidence you want and they will not independently arrive at the same conclusions as you because they lack your presuppositions. Gather a group of Scientists together who all have the same presuppositions and show them evidence and they will arrive at the same conclusions. However, this does not mean this is necessarily the correct conclusion.

The Dinosaur example was a bad oen considering they were first discovered by Owen who was a Creationist and a staunch opponent of Darwin.

There are plenty of reputable Biologists, Geologists, and Astronomers who are Y-E, it's pretty much an urban legend to think otherwise. You don't think they have models and theories to explain Dinosaurs and Distant Starlight? They do.

---

Not sure why it would give you the chills. My classes scored in the top 5th percentile in the entire State and even higher nationally. 45 percent of my class went on to have full ride academic scholarships for their University studies. Those numbers give me chills, but in the good way.

Just out of curiosity, is your shift button stuck?

Nope.

[Autumnlicious]

Not sure why it would give you the chills. My classes scored in the top 5th percentile in the entire State and even higher nationally. 45 percent of my class went on to have full ride academic scholarships for their University studies. Those numbers give me chills, but in the good way.

Potentially because previous experience in noting "Science teachers" and their deeply held religious beliefs crossing over into the professional life of a teacher and what they teach?

If you are teaching appropriately and keeping your beliefs out of school, then congratulations. Else, I feel you will get a chilly reception from the majority of believers and nonbelievers alike.

[Shell B]

Nope.

Just checking.

I'm itching to ask you how you think Noah fit all those animals in a boat, but I think that is deserving of a different thread, one that won't be started, I hope.

[HeyItsZeus]

I mean a fundamentalist.

Hello Anyways but you will not find a home here. Most of the people that come to these forums are realistic people.

[Statler Waldorf]

A retar..... I mean a fundamentalist.

Hello Anyways but you will not find a home here. Most of the people that come to these forums are realistic people.

Haha, hello back. Appreciate the warm and mature welcome.

---

Nope.

Just checking.

I'm itching to ask you how you think Noah fit all those animals in a boat, but I think that is deserving of a different thread, one that won't be started, I hope.

You can start that thread if you like. I can defend the Noah account fairly easily.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Well bigotry is wrong no matter who it is against, even Creationists.

It's not creationists I despise, It's creationism. I don't like creationists teaching sciences that creationism is conflicted against for the same reason the oil industry shouldn't be allowed to regulate themselves. It's counter productive.

Evidence cannot be interpreted without presuppositions. Presuppostions come directly from Worldviews. Hence why you can show a first grade student all the radiometric evidence you want and they will not independently arrive at the same conclusions as you because they lack your presuppositions. Gather a group of Scientists together who all have the same presuppositions and show them evidence and they will arrive at the same conclusions. However, this does not mean this is necessarily the correct conclusion.

Evidence can certainly be interpreted without presuppositions. Just ask any criminal investigator. An investigator doesn't walk into a crime scene expecting to find anything other than evidence and not even necessarily for a crime because just because they call it a crime scence doesn't mean a crime was even committed.
The exact same thing is true for scientists - they haven't arrived to the conclusion that the earth is 4.54 billion years old because they had the worldview first and the evience came in later to support it - the evidence pointed in that direction and the scientists followed.

The Dinosaur example was a bad oen considering they were first discovered by Owen who was a Creationist and a staunch opponent of Darwin.

... and how does that make it a bad example? He was clearly wrong, falsifying or purposefully misinterpreting data because it was opposed to his own beliefs, and was later proven to be a fraud because of those actions as more and more evidence piled up against his suppositions.

There are plenty of reputable Biologists, Geologists, and Astronomers who are Y-E, it's pretty much an urban legend to think otherwise. You don't think they have models and theories to explain Dinosaurs and Distant Starlight? They do.

Considering I am fully aware of the statistics of the prominance of Y-E creationism in scientific fields, I don't think I am when I say that the concept among scientists who hold to that belief is virtually non-existant.
There is a greater perponderance of scientists who have religion but they are not in the majority compared to atheists and agnostics in the field.
I'm also fully aware of the Y-E theories of why things look the way they are and they have the problem of violating the laws of physics to the point to where the universe could not exist in their "theories" were true or the universe wouldn't exist as they expect it would (for example, faster light in the past actually results in a universe older than the one we currently have.)

Case and Point: (Not just the linked video but all five parts to which ths video is the first part of.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bRvt0InhYk