The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[The Omnissiunt One]

In reply to something you wrote a while back, Statler:

God's common grace can effect non-believers just as easily as it can believers. It's his saving grace that only effects believers.
We see this when God hardens Pharoah's heart, he hardens his heart but still punishes him for it. I think he can do this because of the way he hardened it. The only reason Pharoah was not completely evil was because he was being "held up" by God's common grace. So in order to harden his heart, all God had to do was remove some of that common grace and Pharoah's heart became harder because he made decisions based on his fallen nature.

So how is this at all fair? It's like raising a child to be bad, then punishing him for it. Except for eternity.

This also gets into the different will's of God. When God has Moses tell Pharoah that God wants him to let His people go, this is one of God's wills. However, God also hardens Pharoah's heart so that he does not let His people go. This is God's other will. God essentially delays Pharoah's response so He could bring more glory to Himself which is God's purpose.

It's a pretty bizarre way of doing things, not to mention arrogant. Couldn't he just have had breakdancing angels or something if he wanted to impress?

We see this in the death of Christ too. Three different groups of people were responsible for Christ's death, the Pharisees, Pilot, and the Romans. All three groups were doing what they wanted to do, and for different reasons. Yet, all three groups were accomplishing was God had ordained to happen, and yet all three groups will be punished for their actions and justly so. They will be punished because their intentions behind the actions were evil. This is the reformed viewpoint (a cliff notes version) of this issue, you would get different answers from different groups of Chrstians. However I feel this is the most consistant and satisfying position.

And their intentions were evil because of their fallen nature, for which God is either directly or indirectly responsible. So the punishment is not just.

A little post-script though. As long as God is accomplishing his purpose he is not doing evil, so none of this can be used to call God evil. In Genesis Joseph gives us another look at how man can do something with evil intentions and yet God can ordain the same event for good. Joseph tells his brothers (after they sold him into slavery), "You meant it for evil, God meant it for good".

So if God's purpose were, say, to cause pain to babies, would that be evil?

[Statler Waldorf]

[quote='Statler Waldorf' pid='100612' dateline='1287691788']Attacking a source doesn't do anything to discredit the information at hand, and it's a pretty lame way of debating. That's why I want to move away from it, you guys can use your sources (youtube and wiki) and I can use mine (AIG, CMI, and ICR). Fair is fair.

I like to pretend we still live in a country that alwyers and judges do not decide what is and is not science, apparently you don't live in that country. The Evolutionists lost the Scopes Monkey Trials mind you, so can I use that to attack the validity of Evolutionary education? I would not stoop to this level and you should not either.

I'm sorry, but what?
Evolutionists lost the John Scopes "The Monkey Trial"? The case of an attempt to stifle the teaching of evolution was dismissed, although it wasn't a trial that was brought before the supreme court to determine its constitutionality, as some hoped, it didnt' end favorably for anti-evolutionists in the sense that it didn't make teaching evolution against the constitution, illegal, or any action that would result in legal action and it allowed the theory to be taught in all of the schools where the legality of the action was questioned, except in Arkansas and Mississippi.

Don't talk about your sources as though we're avoiding the scientific subjects they bring up. Not only are those sources in the business of spreading misinformation and ignorance about the related topics in favor of their literalist interpretation of the bible or other religions, but the reason these sources are not credible is precisely because the information they spread is consistently not credible.

And don't pretend as though we've only been attacking AIG, ICR, and CMI's credibility - we're attacking their credibility based on their claims while refuting those as well.

[/hide]

Well somebody has been watching "Inherit The Wind" too much. The trial was not even dealing with whether or not you can teach evolution in the classroom. Rather it was on whether the use of a certain Evolutionary Textbook (one that even viewed whites as the superior race) violated the Butler Act. Scopes' lawyer pleaded with the Jury on the final day to actually find his client guilty, only so he (the lawyer) would not have to take the witness stand. Scopes was found guilty by the court for violating the Butler Act (So they did lose this trial like I said). He was later aquitted by the Supreme Court in Tennessee on a technicality. You shouldn't always look to Hollywood for your information on historical matters. I stand by my original position that judges should never decide what is and is not Science.

You actually have not argued against the material in my sources. You just post links to sources of your own. I suggest you point out where my sources supposedly mess up their science rather than just calling them non-scientific, or claim they are dishonest. You can start by addressing the article by Dr. Jason Lisle. Thanks

[orogenicman]

Well somebody has been watching "Inherit The Wind" too much. The trial was not even dealing with whether or not you can teach evolution in the classroom. Rather it was on whether the use of a certain Evolutionary Textbook (one that even viewed whites as the superior race) violated the Butler Act. Scopes' lawyer pleaded with the Jury on the final day to actually find his client guilty, only so he (the lawyer) would not have to take the witness stand. Scopes was found guilty by the court for violating the Butler Act (So they did lose this trial like I said). He was later aquitted by the Supreme Court in Tennessee on a technicality. You shouldn't always look to Hollywood for your information on historical matters. I stand by my original position that judges should never decide what is and is not Science.

The point is that the "jury" is no longer out with regard to the theory of evolution. The Dover trial made it very clear that ID is a mask for creationism, misrepresents science, and is a religious belief, a fact on which the Supreme Court has already ruled. What they decided was what ID and creationism was not. What they are not is science, and where they don't belong is in public school science class. Yes, SW, we are all aware that nothing would make creationists happier than to keep the courts from protecting the rights of Americans.

[Statler Waldorf]

Nope. Just laying out roles in the Church. Give me a verse that says, "Women are inferior to Men" and I may agree wtih you. After his resurrection Jesus first appeared to a woman. There will be women in Heaven, there will be women in Hell. There will be men in heaven, there will be men in hell. God loves them all.

Yeah, roles where women are considered inferior to men.

How about this little gem-

I Corinthians 14:34-35 "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church."

Or how about Genesis 3:16? "...your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

Still want to argue that the writers of the Bible didn't consider women to be inferior to men? The simple phrase "Let your women..." implies OWNERSHIP!

Nope sorry, still just different roles in the Church. Men are commanded to love their wives, uh oh! Does this mean men are inferior to women because they are the only ones commanded to love? Nope. Nice try. These are all things people who don't understand scripture try to point out, women are given roles in the church and they are just as important as the roles men are given.

When you ask someone, "oh is that YOUR wife", or does that mean you legally own that person? Nope, that's just the way the English works there.

Noticed you failed to give verses like this...

Galatians 3:8
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Please tell me, using your Atheistic Worldview why it would be wrong for a person to view women as inferior. This ought to be good.

[Anomalocaris]

Please tell me, using your Atheistic Worldview why it would be wrong for a person to view women as inferior. This ought to be good.

Based on evidence. My wife completely independently developed the same regard for science and the same contempt for creationism that I did.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

"I love how you claim Creation is not Science"

That is only because it isn't science. It is a religious belief held by a very small minority of conservative fundamentalist Christians. THE END.

---

I was actually doing some post graduate work with one of the National Parks in my area. I was working with one of my old professors (My Evolutionary Biology Professor, an Atheist btw). We were talking about the current Scientific Community and Peer-review system and he actually gave me a warning. He said that some of the guys out there now are so tied into their view of Science that if someone were to find something that shook the very foundations of it, their life may be endangered. It really is sad the way it works today, it reminds me of the old Dr. Seuss story about the "Sneetches".

Actually creationists have a system identical to the secular system. Several evolutionists have tried to submit fraudulant articles for publishing in creation journals (posing as creationists dishonestly) but these journals were rejected every time based on bad methodology. Kind of funny actually.

What a load of crap. Her work was ininitally refused because it was suspected that her samples were contaminated. After more analysis was done, it was acepted.

Creationists have nothing like the scientific method, or scientic peer review. Nothing at all like it, so please stop misrepresenting the facts.

Now you are just being dishonest, it's really sad you would go that far. If you had read the article I posted you would have seen that her article was rejected by one reviewer on the grounds that it couldn't be right. When asked what amount of evidence could ever persuade him he replied "none". Yes that sound rather objective to me (sarcasm). Even her boss Jack Horner admitted that despite doing good work she was having a tough time being published because people didn't like her findings. Read the article.

Oh really? Like you have any idea what goes into being published in a Creation Peer-reviewed journal. I challenge you to write and article and try to be published. If they are really as bad as you make them out to be, then it should be pretty easy for you to get published right? You'd get rejected.

Creationists don't follow the Scientific Method? That's a funny statement since they came up with it. (Bacon was a young Earth Creationist).

[Sam]

---

[quote='Statler Waldorf' pid='100612' dateline='1287691788']Attacking a source doesn't do anything to discredit the information at hand, and it's a pretty lame way of debating. That's why I want to move away from it, you guys can use your sources (youtube and wiki) and I can use mine (AIG, CMI, and ICR). Fair is fair.

I like to pretend we still live in a country that alwyers and judges do not decide what is and is not science, apparently you don't live in that country. The Evolutionists lost the Scopes Monkey Trials mind you, so can I use that to attack the validity of Evolutionary education? I would not stoop to this level and you should not either.

I'm sorry, but what?
Evolutionists lost the John Scopes "The Monkey Trial"? The case of an attempt to stifle the teaching of evolution was dismissed, although it wasn't a trial that was brought before the supreme court to determine its constitutionality, as some hoped, it didnt' end favorably for anti-evolutionists in the sense that it didn't make teaching evolution against the constitution, illegal, or any action that would result in legal action and it allowed the theory to be taught in all of the schools where the legality of the action was questioned, except in Arkansas and Mississippi.

Don't talk about your sources as though we're avoiding the scientific subjects they bring up. Not only are those sources in the business of spreading misinformation and ignorance about the related topics in favor of their literalist interpretation of the bible or other religions, but the reason these sources are not credible is precisely because the information they spread is consistently not credible.

And don't pretend as though we've only been attacking AIG, ICR, and CMI's credibility - we're attacking their credibility based on their claims while refuting those as well.

Well somebody has been watching "Inherit The Wind" too much. The trial was not even dealing with whether or not you can teach evolution in the classroom. Rather it was on whether the use of a certain Evolutionary Textbook (one that even viewed whites as the superior race) violated the Butler Act. Scopes' lawyer pleaded with the Jury on the final day to actually find his client guilty, only so he (the lawyer) would not have to take the witness stand. Scopes was found guilty by the court for violating the Butler Act (So they did lose this trial like I said). He was later aquitted by the Supreme Court in Tennessee on a technicality. You shouldn't always look to Hollywood for your information on historical matters. I stand by my original position that judges should never decide what is and is not Science.

You actually have not argued against the material in my sources. You just post links to sources of your own. I suggest you point out where my sources supposedly mess up their science rather than just calling them non-scientific, or claim they are dishonest. You can start by addressing the article by Dr. Jason Lisle. Thanks

---

Okay Statler, While I completely disagree with you that all sources are equal in fact, I believe that sources earn their credibility based on a history of good practice. I've had a quick look at Dr. Lisle article and can see some issues right from the start;

Mature Creation

It has been suggested that God supernaturally created the beams of light themselves. That is, the light beam from every star to earth is created “in transit” at the same time the stars are created. This light en-route model is often presented in the context of mature creation: the idea that God created the universe fully functional from the start, and that the universe required no time or process to become what God wanted it to be.

Mature creation is sometimes inappropriately referred to as “appearance of age”; however the latter term fallaciously implies that age can be seen or otherwise empirically measured. But since age is not a physical property or substance, it cannot be directly observed. Of course there is a sense in which we say that something appears old or young—a person who looks “young” for his age, or a car that looks quite “old.” In these cases, we are speaking idiomatically, comparing observable characteristics and then making an inference based on comparisons with other samples whose age is known. This of course is not possible with the universe, since there is only one known member of its class (Chaffey and Lisle 2008).

Strictly speaking, something cannot appear old or young, because age is not an observational property. Age is a concept indicative of history, which cannot be observed in the present. When someone says he believes the universe “looks old,” this simply reveals something about the initial conditions he has assumed—not about the universe. Thus, the universe was not created with “appearance of age,” but it was created mature—in the sense that it functioned immediately upon God’s creating it. Just as Adam was created mature, needing no time or process to reach adulthood, so was the universe.

Mr Lisle outlines his assertion of 'Mature Creation' in that his deity created the universe in a functioning state requiring no time to reach a sustainable, inhabitable universer.

Mr Lisle unfortunately commits several assumptions, that god exists, that he is capable of creating the universe spontaneously and so on. These assumptions make him inclined to believe that the simple answer 'God made it this way' has some inherrent value despite essentially raising more questions than it would settle.

When he points out that the assumption of age is a product of the assumed boundary conditions he is quite correct. Again however his soloution is infinetely more improbable and complex than the one he is trying to disprove.

Many arguments against a young universe are indeed easily refuted by pointing out that the universe was made mature, and hence the advocate of an “old earth” has assumed the incorrect initial conditions. Today, for example, trees need a certain amount of time to reach a certain size. But the first trees were created supernaturally, and needed less than a day to reach their size. If someone were to assume that the first trees came about by today’s natural processes (growing from a seed at today’s rate), he or she would vastly overestimate the age.

Mr Lisle here states that 'Old Earth' assumptions are easily refuted by pointing out that all this assumes the earth & universe are old. He fails to note that these assumption are based on a vast mountain of evidence which points exclusively this way while his own theory by its definition as 'supernatural' has none.

I know, now you can claim that god wanted it all to look this way. This introduces a complication which is yet again not required, as the existing models BASED ON EVIDENCE can account for it without invoking a creator deity.

The overwhelming majority of old-earth, or old-universe arguments are fallacious because they are based on faulty, unbiblical initial conditions . For example, by assuming that the universe began with no size, or that the solar system formed from a nebula, and then extrapolating how long it would take to reach its present state, of course one is bound to reach a faulty age estimate that is inflated by a factor of millions. Old-universe supporters frequently make such mistakes. They have arbitrarily assumed unbiblical initial conditions , and then use the resulting inflated age estimate to argue that the Bible is wrong. But, of course, this simply begs the question.

Mr Lisle asserts that only biblical initial conditions are valid, despite the lack of any evidence in their favour. His entire argument assumes the correctness of the bible and existence of god and therefore is inherently flawed ... not because of the assumption itself but because his assumption has no evidence, while the opposing theories assumption are backed up by a history of conciliatory experiments.

Mr Lisle unfortunately has had to try so hard to fit his pre-concieved ideas of a 6000-7000 year old earth into his science that he ends up having to make blind assertions that things were created that way at an aribitrary point in time.

Cheers

Sam

P.S. I really apologise for my spelling & grammar. I'm quite busy at the moment so I write these posts in a hurry.

[Statler Waldorf]

In reply to something you wrote a while back, Statler:

So how is this at all fair? It's like raising a child to be bad, then punishing him for it. Except for eternity.

It's actually still fair because man is responsible for his sin. Adam was man's represenative, so when Adam fell all of man fell. Rather than punishing all of man (which would be completely just)- God chose to punish some and give others saving grace (even though all man gets some grace because God let's them live longer than they deserve to). Both actions bring glory to God. This is why God does not even let Job ask why everything that happened to him happened. Despite everything that happened to Job, it was still better than he truly deserved. So to second guess God in giving you something better than you deserve would be wrong.

It's a pretty bizarre way of doing things, not to mention arrogant. Couldn't he just have had breakdancing angels or something if he wanted to impress?

I actually think being glorified by exercising perfect judgement and grace is a pretty cool way of doing things.

And their intentions were evil because of their fallen nature, for which God is either directly or indirectly responsible. So the punishment is not just.

I would not argue that God is responsible for Man's sin, or fallen nature. Rather than blaming God for something that Adam did, we should be thanking God for not punishing us to the fullest extent possible.

So if God's purpose were, say, to cause pain to babies, would that be evil?

Not using the Bible's definition of evil no. Evil is defined as something contrary to God's purpose or nature. Now if you wanted to make up some new definition for evil, like "causing babies pain" then it would be under that definition. However that would not really prove anything because we just changed the meaning of the word. I like the first definition of evil because it makes it so evil is not dependent on era or race, or anything arbitrary like that.

How do you define evil?

[Sam]

Now you are just being dishonest, it's really sad you would go that far. If you had read the article I posted you would have seen that her article was rejected by one reviewer on the grounds that it couldn't be right. When asked what amount of evidence could ever persuade him he replied "none". Yes that sound rather objective to me (sarcasm). Even her boss Jack Horner admitted that despite doing good work she was having a tough time being published because people didn't like her findings. Read the article.

Oh really? Like you have any idea what goes into being published in a Creation Peer-reviewed journal. I challenge you to write and article and try to be published. If they are really as bad as you make them out to be, then it should be pretty easy for you to get published right? You'd get rejected.

Creationists don't follow the Scientific Method? That's a funny statement since they came up with it. (Bacon was a young Earth Creationist).

Me again,

Just thought I'd point something out;

Addressing the need to disseminate the vast fields of research conducted by creationist experts in theology, history, archaeology, anthropology, biology, geology, astronomy, and other disciplines of science, Answers Research Journal will provide scientists and students the results of cutting-edge research that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of “created kinds,” and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins. The newly expanded research effort at Answers in Genesis, with the establishment of its Research Department, will facilitate this further venue for publication and dissemination of the results of creationist research.

Statler, this 'journal' has defined itself as disseminating 'research that validates the young earth model ...' by thier own claim they do not support the scientific method as they have constrained very tightly what they are willing to accept.

I'm suprised a strong proponent of 'Free Speech' like yourself would be comfortable with this.

Cheers

Sam

[Statler Waldorf]

Well somebody has been watching "Inherit The Wind" too much. The trial was not even dealing with whether or not you can teach evolution in the classroom. Rather it was on whether the use of a certain Evolutionary Textbook (one that even viewed whites as the superior race) violated the Butler Act. Scopes' lawyer pleaded with the Jury on the final day to actually find his client guilty, only so he (the lawyer) would not have to take the witness stand. Scopes was found guilty by the court for violating the Butler Act (So they did lose this trial like I said). He was later aquitted by the Supreme Court in Tennessee on a technicality. You shouldn't always look to Hollywood for your information on historical matters. I stand by my original position that judges should never decide what is and is not Science.

The point is that the "jury" is no longer out with regard to the theory of evolution. The Dover trial made it very clear that ID is a mask for creationism, misrepresents science, and is a religious belief, a fact on which the Supreme Court has already ruled. What they decided was what ID and creationism was not. What they are not is science, and where they don't belong is in public school science class. Yes, SW, we are all aware that nothing would make creationists happier than to keep the courts from protecting the rights of Americans.

Hmm, well you may be happy with people with law degrees deciding what is and is not Science, but I am not. Besides, one of your buddies on here defined Science as "wanting to learn", seems like you guys don't even agree what is science and is not science. Creation Science falls under the dictionary definition of science so I like to define it as so- I don't care what some Judge thinks. You are right about one thing though, ID and Creation Science should not be in public schools, but neither should kids.

P.S. ID is not Creationism, stop trying to tell Creationists what they believe and what they don't believe. The ID movement are just a bunch of Old-Earth Scientists who recognize the weaknesses of Neo-Darwinian Theory and Abiogenesis and want something more intellectually satisfying. Some of them believe in panspermia, which is not Creationism. I am not surprised that the legal professionals in Dover could not see this clear distinction, considering their area of focus is the legal system and not science. However, I am a bit surprised you cannot see this clear distinction.

---

Please tell me, using your Atheistic Worldview why it would be wrong for a person to view women as inferior. This ought to be good.

Based on evidence. My wife completely independently developed the same regard for science and the same contempt for creationism that I did.

Just because your wife is just as wrong as you are on these matters does not tell us why it is morally wrong to view women as inferior using your Atheistic Worldview.

---

---

[hide]

[quote='Statler Waldorf' pid='100612' dateline='1287691788']Attacking a source doesn't do anything to discredit the information at hand, and it's a pretty lame way of debating. That's why I want to move away from it, you guys can use your sources (youtube and wiki) and I can use mine (AIG, CMI, and ICR). Fair is fair.

I like to pretend we still live in a country that alwyers and judges do not decide what is and is not science, apparently you don't live in that country. The Evolutionists lost the Scopes Monkey Trials mind you, so can I use that to attack the validity of Evolutionary education? I would not stoop to this level and you should not either.

I'm sorry, but what?
Evolutionists lost the John Scopes "The Monkey Trial"? The case of an attempt to stifle the teaching of evolution was dismissed, although it wasn't a trial that was brought before the supreme court to determine its constitutionality, as some hoped, it didnt' end favorably for anti-evolutionists in the sense that it didn't make teaching evolution against the constitution, illegal, or any action that would result in legal action and it allowed the theory to be taught in all of the schools where the legality of the action was questioned, except in Arkansas and Mississippi.

Don't talk about your sources as though we're avoiding the scientific subjects they bring up. Not only are those sources in the business of spreading misinformation and ignorance about the related topics in favor of their literalist interpretation of the bible or other religions, but the reason these sources are not credible is precisely because the information they spread is consistently not credible.

And don't pretend as though we've only been attacking AIG, ICR, and CMI's credibility - we're attacking their credibility based on their claims while refuting those as well.

Well somebody has been watching "Inherit The Wind" too much. The trial was not even dealing with whether or not you can teach evolution in the classroom. Rather it was on whether the use of a certain Evolutionary Textbook (one that even viewed whites as the superior race) violated the Butler Act. Scopes' lawyer pleaded with the Jury on the final day to actually find his client guilty, only so he (the lawyer) would not have to take the witness stand. Scopes was found guilty by the court for violating the Butler Act (So they did lose this trial like I said). He was later aquitted by the Supreme Court in Tennessee on a technicality. You shouldn't always look to Hollywood for your information on historical matters. I stand by my original position that judges should never decide what is and is not Science.

You actually have not argued against the material in my sources. You just post links to sources of your own. I suggest you point out where my sources supposedly mess up their science rather than just calling them non-scientific, or claim they are dishonest. You can start by addressing the article by Dr. Jason Lisle. Thanks

---

Okay Statler, While I completely disagree with you that all sources are equal in fact, I believe that sources earn their credibility based on a history of good practice. I've had a quick look at Dr. Lisle article and can see some issues right from the start;

Mature Creation

It has been suggested that God supernaturally created the beams of light themselves. That is, the light beam from every star to earth is created “in transit” at the same time the stars are created. This light en-route model is often presented in the context of mature creation: the idea that God created the universe fully functional from the start, and that the universe required no time or process to become what God wanted it to be.

Mature creation is sometimes inappropriately referred to as “appearance of age”; however the latter term fallaciously implies that age can be seen or otherwise empirically measured. But since age is not a physical property or substance, it cannot be directly observed. Of course there is a sense in which we say that something appears old or young—a person who looks “young” for his age, or a car that looks quite “old.” In these cases, we are speaking idiomatically, comparing observable characteristics and then making an inference based on comparisons with other samples whose age is known. This of course is not possible with the universe, since there is only one known member of its class (Chaffey and Lisle 2008).

Strictly speaking, something cannot appear old or young, because age is not an observational property. Age is a concept indicative of history, which cannot be observed in the present. When someone says he believes the universe “looks old,” this simply reveals something about the initial conditions he has assumed—not about the universe. Thus, the universe was not created with “appearance of age,” but it was created mature—in the sense that it functioned immediately upon God’s creating it. Just as Adam was created mature, needing no time or process to reach adulthood, so was the universe.

Mr Lisle outlines his assertion of 'Mature Creation' in that his deity created the universe in a functioning state requiring no time to reach a sustainable, inhabitable universer.

Mr Lisle unfortunately commits several assumptions, that god exists, that he is capable of creating the universe spontaneously and so on. These assumptions make him inclined to believe that the simple answer 'God made it this way' has some inherrent value despite essentially raising more questions than it would settle.

When he points out that the assumption of age is a product of the assumed boundary conditions he is quite correct. Again however his soloution is infinetely more improbable and complex than the one he is trying to disprove.

Many arguments against a young universe are indeed easily refuted by pointing out that the universe was made mature, and hence the advocate of an “old earth” has assumed the incorrect initial conditions. Today, for example, trees need a certain amount of time to reach a certain size. But the first trees were created supernaturally, and needed less than a day to reach their size. If someone were to assume that the first trees came about by today’s natural processes (growing from a seed at today’s rate), he or she would vastly overestimate the age.

Mr Lisle here states that 'Old Earth' assumptions are easily refuted by pointing out that all this assumes the earth & universe are old. He fails to note that these assumption are based on a vast mountain of evidence which points exclusively this way while his own theory by its definition as 'supernatural' has none.

I know, now you can claim that god wanted it all to look this way. This introduces a complication which is yet again not required, as the existing models BASED ON EVIDENCE can account for it without invoking a creator deity.

The overwhelming majority of old-earth, or old-universe arguments are fallacious because they are based on faulty, unbiblical initial conditions . For example, by assuming that the universe began with no size, or that the solar system formed from a nebula, and then extrapolating how long it would take to reach its present state, of course one is bound to reach a faulty age estimate that is inflated by a factor of millions. Old-universe supporters frequently make such mistakes. They have arbitrarily assumed unbiblical initial conditions , and then use the resulting inflated age estimate to argue that the Bible is wrong. But, of course, this simply begs the question.

Mr Lisle asserts that only biblical initial conditions are valid, despite the lack of any evidence in their favour. His entire argument assumes the correctness of the bible and existence of god and therefore is inherently flawed ... not because of the assumption itself but because his assumption has no evidence, while the opposing theories assumption are backed up by a history of conciliatory experiments.

Mr Lisle unfortunately has had to try so hard to fit his pre-concieved ideas of a 6000-7000 year old earth into his science that he ends up having to make blind assertions that things were created that way at an aribitrary point in time.

Cheers

Sam

P.S. I really apologise for my spelling & grammar. I'm quite busy at the moment so I write these posts in a hurry. [/hide]

Hey Sam

Thanks for reading the article. I think you will find that Lisle does not actually like the "Beams created already in place" argument. I believe he is just explaining different Creation Models at this point in time.

Well I think you are have actually gotten to the very heart of the issue. That evidence itself does not favor one side or the other. If I use anti-biblical assumptions or purely naturalistic assumptions I can certainly interpret the evidence to fit an old universe/world. However, this interpretation cannot then be used to argue against someone who uses biblical assumptions because I assumed the Bible was not true from the very beginning. So I would be assuming the proof or begging the question. Where if I assume the Bible is true and then interpret the evidence from there I can argue for a young Earth rather easily. Even though both sides are looking at the same evidence. Dr. Lisle is well aware of this, he goes into this is very great detail in his DVD, "The Ultimate Proof for Creatioin". Where he takes teh argument down to really a debate between Worldviews where it should be occuring. Have you read the entire article yet? I think it gets pretty interesting.

I will give you an example of how pre-suppositions can effect the interpretation of the evidence on both sides.

When red blood cells were found in T-rex bones in the late 90's and ealry 2000's both sides interpreted this same evidence completely different based upon their pre-suppositions.

The evolutionary side first said that they could not have been red blood cells. Why? Well they know that red blood cells could not have lasted 65 million years. One of their pre-suppositions was that T-rex lived that long ago. So these fossils had to be that old

When the structures were in fact shown to be red-blood cells then the Evolutionary side just said, "well I guess red blood cells CAN last 65 million years".

The Creation side said, "well we are not surprised you found red blood cells because T-rex only lived 4500 years ago."

See how that works? Same evidnece, two very different interpreations based completely on pre-suppositions.

Another example of this was given by one of the Geologists at CMI. He said that he and his friend (an old Earth Evolutionist) were talking one day. The creationist asked the evolutionist what it would take for him to believe that Dinosaurs and Man co-existed. The evolutionist said he thought probably finding a fossilized dinosaur print with a fossilized human print inside of it.

Well in the mid 90's there were a set of prints being looked at in Texas that looked like human prints with dinosaur prints (later found out to not be human prints). While this research was going on the creationist asked his firned if he was going to believe humans and dinosaurs co-existed if these tracks proved to be valid. The friend told him that he had been thinking about their conversation and said that he had decided that if human tracks were ever found with dinosaur tracks then that would actually be evidence for time travel. Both sides can sit there and make up these rescue mechanisms to preserve their preconceived ideas of how the world works.

---

---

Now you are just being dishonest, it's really sad you would go that far. If you had read the article I posted you would have seen that her article was rejected by one reviewer on the grounds that it couldn't be right. When asked what amount of evidence could ever persuade him he replied "none". Yes that sound rather objective to me (sarcasm). Even her boss Jack Horner admitted that despite doing good work she was having a tough time being published because people didn't like her findings. Read the article.

Oh really? Like you have any idea what goes into being published in a Creation Peer-reviewed journal. I challenge you to write and article and try to be published. If they are really as bad as you make them out to be, then it should be pretty easy for you to get published right? You'd get rejected.

Creationists don't follow the Scientific Method? That's a funny statement since they came up with it. (Bacon was a young Earth Creationist).

Me again,

Just thought I'd point something out;

Addressing the need to disseminate the vast fields of research conducted by creationist experts in theology, history, archaeology, anthropology, biology, geology, astronomy, and other disciplines of science, Answers Research Journal will provide scientists and students the results of cutting-edge research that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of “created kinds,” and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins. The newly expanded research effort at Answers in Genesis, with the establishment of its Research Department, will facilitate this further venue for publication and dissemination of the results of creationist research.

Statler, this 'journal' has defined itself as disseminating 'research that validates the young earth model ...' by thier own claim they do not support the scientific method as they have constrained very tightly what they are willing to accept.

I'm suprised a strong proponent of 'Free Speech' like yourself would be comfortable with this.

Cheers

Sam

---

Well they are actually very concerned with methodology. It's not like you could just write up some paper that said the Earth was young and they would accept it. It's a creation journal so it comes to me as no surprise that they would want creation articles published in it. Just like a psychology journal would want articles concerning psychology published in it and the journal Evolution probably wants articles that support the theory of Evolution. As long as they are very strict about methodology (which they are) then I do not see a problem with that statement. I could write up the World's best research paper, have flawless methodology, but if my outcome pointed to a Creator or a Young Earth I can bet it would not get published in Evolution or Science. Both sdies want a specific kind of article, wich I guess is ok as long as we are allowed to read both sides' journals. Your thoughts?