Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

PeterAngelo · Feb 6, 2004, 07:34 pm

God is everything and we are just "strings" attached to eternity. Take whatever pleasure is available now - there is no tomorrow.

bmaestro · Feb 6, 2004, 08:59 pm

interesting...

i'm new here, so i didn't have the time to read all 200 posts on this thread, and i appologize if what i say has been said already. How is creationism a science, when it is built entirely on making one claim, and searching for evidence of that one particular claim? In every college science class I've had so far, the professors have explained that science is based on the progression of ideas from one to the next, and whereas the "truth" of evolutionism is constantly evolving (new hypotheses being made about the mechanisms of evolution), creation "science" is not refined to fit the data, in fact, the exact opposite is true. the data of creation scientists is refined to fit the claim. there are some aspects of the scientific method that are present, but as a science, creationism is fundamentally flawed.

one thing that confuses a lot of creationists is the nature of evolutionary biology. its designed to explain mechanisms by which these things happen, and have happened over large amounts of time, but not necessarily origins. whatever makes us human, or makes something alive is some entirely different debate, and perhaps where creationists should focus their efforts, rather than take the words of evolutionary biologists out of context to justify their claims.

-b

**Pooeypants** · Feb 7, 2004, 07:10 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (makeshiftpatriot,)
interesting...

i'm new here, so i didn't have the time to read all 200 posts on this thread, and i appologize if what i say has been said already. How is creationism a science, when it is built entirely on making one claim, and searching for evidence of that one particular claim? In every college science class I've had so far, the professors have explained that science is based on the progression of ideas from one to the next, and whereas the "truth" of evolutionism is constantly evolving (new hypotheses being made about the mechanisms of evolution), creation "science" is not refined to fit the data, in fact, the exact opposite is true. the data of creation scientists is refined to fit the claim. there are some aspects of the scientific method that are present, but as a science, creationism is fundamentally flawed.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Not to be too picky, but there's no such thing as evolutionism, nor is there gravitism etc...
But you're right, Creationism is flawed as a science because to start off with, they don't follow the scientific methods. Infact, I remember a certain Creationist research group whom have sworn an oath that no matter what their research result comes up with, they will always support creationism...oh good science there

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

one thing that confuses a lot of creationists is the nature of evolutionary biology. its designed to explain mechanisms by which these things happen, and have happened over large amounts of time, but not necessarily origins. whatever makes us human, or makes something alive is some entirely different debate, and perhaps where creationists should focus their efforts, rather than take the words of evolutionary biologists out of context to justify their claims.

-b<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Most creationists don't even bother to learn the science before they attack the theory, they're not confused, just uneducated at most times and their only input has been brainwashing from their churches that an ancient book's word is absolute, despite what we can "see" with our eyes.
For the creationists whom do know biology, or claim to know the science, they're showing ignorance of the greatest proportions, there is too much evidence correlating with evolution for a true scientist to ignore and then try to refute. Insanity doesn't come near to the word of what can describe their behaviour, it's too tame fitting.

Plaything48 · Feb 7, 2004, 10:57 am

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by
jpapadpapa
There are many questions that science cannot answer and there are many questions that are still unanswered by evolutionists, such as where did the original matter come from? As I said earlier, nothing comes from nothing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What type of matter are you referring to? Particle matter?

bmaestro · Feb 7, 2004, 04:15 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Not to be too picky, but there's no such thing as evolutionism, nor is there gravitism etc...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Sorry about that slip, I've just been a little postmodern lately, and I guess I just wanted to look at evolutionary biology as another belief, with an equal capacity for explaining our world as anything else

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
There are many questions that science cannot answer and there are many questions that are still unanswered by evolutionists, such as where did the original matter come from? As I said earlier, nothing comes from nothing.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I had a really interesting conversation with a friend of mine the other day. She said that from what she's heard, a lot of physicists come to a conclusion that there must be a "god" of some sort, but some intangible force that creates order and regulates the way things work in the universe. But here we completely diverge from the topic, and get into something more philisophical.

I think the main problem with the debate of evolution vs. creation is that they're trying to explain different things. Evolution tries to track the changes in organisms through time, and does so successfully, both in mathematical modeling and actual field-collected data. This is something scientific and tangible. Creationism, despite its posturing as a science, tries to explain origins, and thats a philisophical debate about the intangible. The two theories could be perfectly complementary, if the bible weren't taken so literally. So, why is it?

-b

shunyadragon · Feb 8, 2004, 07:32 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (makeshiftpatriot,)

The two theories could be perfectly complementary, if the bible weren't taken so literally. So, why is it? <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Very good question. Why is the bible taken so literally?

fogus · Feb 9, 2004, 05:46 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Capitalist Pig
Any input?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I am awaiting an article about the nylon bug. When I get it I will up date you.

~ Justin

fogus · Feb 9, 2004, 06:10 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by (makeshiftpatriot,)

The two theories could be perfectly complementary, if the bible weren't taken so literally. So, why is it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very good question. Why is the bible taken so literally?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The reason we creationists take Genesis literally is because that is the way the writer of genesis intended it to be.

“As far as I know there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the idea that:

(a) Creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience;
(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to the later stages in the Biblical story;
© Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the ark”

~ Professor James Barr, Hebrew scholar and Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures at Oxford University. Personal letter dated April 23, 1984.

damnrad · Feb 9, 2004, 06:23 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)

I believe you yourself made the point earlier that science is constantly changing. The difference is that you assume that evolution is true and base all your arguments on that, whereas I assume that the Bible is true. There are many questions that science cannot answer and there are many questions that are still unanswered by evolutionists, such as where did the original matter come from? As I said earlier, nothing comes from nothing.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You just don't seem to get it. Science does not ASSUME that evolution is true. Science accepts evolution because it has validated the change that occurred over long time periods. It accepts evolutionary theory because that theory best explains such change. In short, science seeks the answers; it doesn't assume them from the start.

You can't see this because, as you yourself have avowed, you start with an assumption about the answers -- you assume that an account in the Bible is literally true. In consequence, you are willing ignore the facts, or to twist the data to fit your assumptions.

damnrad · Feb 9, 2004, 06:30 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PeterAngelo,)
Some minds are physically, chemically, genetically, and forever unable to absorb information and process it in any meaningful way.

IQ tests measure intelligence for a reason. Not all are created equal - intellectually.

Those "lesser" minds will never be able to believe that the laws of physics are the only laws in the universe that matter.

It is too frightening to believe that we (individually) will cease to exist forever.

The argument over creationism v. evolution is an argument between the smart and the dumb. It cannot be won.

The percentage of dumb people is constant. The support they give to state authority, based on fake gods (render to Caesar and all that nonesense), insures a control mechanism for the "sheep" (as the church likes to call the dumb).

There is good business in keeping the argument going, both for fund raising and deliberate divisiveness. It is never ending, and it is boring.

Whatever!!<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

And you are mixing apples and oranges. The 'laws' physics, actually the theories of physics, are science's best job to date at explaining the universe. Are there other laws that matter? That's a meaningless question unless the term 'laws' is defined. The so-called laws of physics are merely statements of what are, so far as we know, invarying relationships. Newton's laws were great laws that seemed certainly true -- until Einstein showed how they were wrong. Science, including phsyics, is about learning, not about certainty.

As to afterlife, gods, supernatural, and so on -- no one knows. Science doesn't know, I don't know, you don't know, the pope doesn't know. But most importantly, such things have nothing to do with science, at least not science as we know it now. As Eugenie Scott says, science can say nothing about God until it develops a theometer.

shunyadragon · Feb 9, 2004, 06:37 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by (makeshiftpatriot,)

The two theories could be perfectly complementary, if the bible weren't taken so literally. So, why is it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very good question. Why is the bible taken so literally?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The reason we creationists take Genesis literally is because that is the way the writer of genesis intended it to be.

“As far as I know there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the idea that:

(a) Creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience;
(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to the later stages in the Biblical story;
© Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the ark”

~ Professor James Barr, Hebrew scholar and Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures at Oxford University. Personal letter dated April 23, 1984.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The writer may have intended to convey that belief, but he or she wrote that text thousands of years ago based on very limited knowledge. Is there any reason to believe it's true.

Is there any quote by Professor James Barr indicating that he believes it is true.

fogus · Feb 9, 2004, 06:41 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

interesting...

i'm new here, so i didn't have the time to read all 200 posts on this thread, and i appologize if what i say has been said already. How is creationism a science, when it is built entirely on making one claim, and searching for evidence of that one particular claim? In every college science class I've had so far, the professors have explained that science is based on the progression of ideas from one to the next, and whereas the "truth" of evolutionism is constantly evolving (new hypotheses being made about the mechanisms of evolution), creation "science" is not refined to fit the data, in fact, the exact opposite is true. the data of creation scientists is refined to fit the claim. there are some aspects of the scientific method that are present, but as a science, creationism is fundamentally flawed.

one thing that confuses a lot of creationists is the nature of evolutionary biology. its designed to explain mechanisms by which these things happen, and have happened over large amounts of time, but not necessarily origins. whatever makes us human, or makes something alive is some entirely different debate, and perhaps where creationists should focus their efforts, rather than take the words of evolutionary biologists out of context to justify their claims.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You make it look as though creationists have manipulated numbers to fit their beliefs. You go further to say that evolutionists have not changed their data but have hanged their theories. You also claim that creationism is not a science because it searches for data to fit the belief that God created the earth in 6 days which are 24hrs. long each. What do you think the “scientists” were doing when they dug up Nebraska “man”? What do you think the mars rovers are doing? Why are we spending millions of dollars looking for water, or even a simple sign of life from outer space? What are we doing with all of the millions of dollars of research going towards evolutionary “science”? If science really changes its truth to match reality then why does it not look at the other 90% of dating methods which point to a young earth? Why is the dynamo theory of the earth’s magnetic field accepted when the rapid decay theory fits the data with extreme accuracy in comparison? The answer is that every “scientist” has a bias! You can’t escape from it! I will agree with all of your numbers about the similarity between the DNA of humans and apes. In fact I will agree with you on everything you can observe. You can use carbon dating, but I won’t agree that the world is millions of years old because your math can pump out big numbers; carbon dating can’t give ages larger than 50,000 years accurately.

shunyadragon · Feb 9, 2004, 07:10 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by (makeshiftpatriot,)

The two theories could be perfectly complementary, if the bible weren't taken so literally. So, why is it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very good question. Why is the bible taken so literally?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The reason we creationists take Genesis literally is because that is the way the writer of genesis intended it to be. His letter is to often quoted on fundimentalist web sites. His letter refers to the sincerity of the writer and not as to whether it should be considered true today.

“As far as I know there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the idea that:

(a) Creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience;
(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to the later stages in the Biblical story;
© Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the ark”

~ Professor James Barr, Hebrew scholar and Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures at Oxford University. Personal letter dated April 23, 1984.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Quoting one letter out of context of James Barr works does not do him justice. James Barr was raised as a fundimentalist Christian and studied theology in college. He later turned away from fundimentalism is considered to be one of the fore most scholars today on Old Testiment Theology and fundimentalism.

The following book is unfortunately out of print, but other works of his are available.

'Fundamentalism' by James Barr 1984

Barr covers what fundamentalists think on a variety of issues, but it's not
just a checklist of doctrinal positions. He covers the more recent
scholarly evangelicals as well as more traditional evangelicalism, also
tries to understand the roots of the beliefs from the last century and
before.

As well as a clear understanding of the movement, Barr has a very good
insight into the problems caused by a fundamentalist approach to the Bible.
His excellent analyses are too numerous to cite.

For anyone who hasn't heard of Barr, he's an Old Testament scholar.
According to the back of another book I have of his he's: Professor of
Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, the Divinity School, Nashville and
Regius Professor of Hebrew Emeritus in the University of Oxford

shunyadragon · Feb 9, 2004, 07:32 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
fogus,

You make it look as though creationists have manipulated numbers to fit their beliefs. You go further to say that evolutionists have not changed their data but have changed their theories. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Scientific theory and knowledge is subject to peer review all over the world and is constantly changing.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
You also claim that creationism is not a science because it searches for data to fit the belief that God created the earth in 6 days which are 24hrs. long each. What do you think the “scientists” were doing when they dug up Nebraska “man”? <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The Nebraska man story is old and was never taken seriously for long by scientists. It is a good example of how science weeds out bad data and information.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
What do you think the mars rovers are doing? Why are we spending millions of dollars looking for water, or even a simple sign of life from outer space? <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I think its great that were exploring and understanding the universe. President George Bush, a fundimentalist Chriatian, fully supports the exploration of Mars and space.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
What are we doing with all of the millions of dollars of research going towards evolutionary “science”? <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Great! But not enough. A lot of the research goes to the field of genetics and the benifits have been significant.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
If science really changes its truth to match reality then why does it not look at the other 90% of dating methods which point to a young earth? Why is the dynamo theory of the earth’s magnetic field accepted when the rapid decay theory fits the data with extreme accuracy in comparison? The answer is that every “scientist” has a bias! You can’t escape from it! I will agree with all of your numbers about the similarity between the DNA of humans and apes. In fact I will agree with you on everything you can observe. You can use carbon dating, but I won’t agree that the world is millions of years old because your math can pump out big numbers; carbon dating can’t give ages larger than 50,000 years accurately.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Much misinformation. Of course carbon dating cannot date anything older than about 50,000 years old. The dating methods for older rocks uses strategraphy and the radioactive decay of heavier elements.

What source do you quote that shows 90% of dating methods point to a young earth? The decay rates of some heavier elements have half lives greater than the time frame for a young earth.

The rapid decay currently observed in the magnetic field fits the long history of the earth, because it fits the cyclic switch of the polarity of the earth over the history of millions of years.
Many scientists do have bias, just like the sky is blue, but peer review, critisim, new research and new research methods among the scientists weed out the false information like the 'Nebraska man' example you sited. Change is apart of the progress of science. That's why you are not riding a horse to work today.

I do have a real problem with the 'Creation Science' advocates abusing science and taking quotes out of context like your example of the James Barr letter.

fogus · Feb 9, 2004, 08:00 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

The writer may have intended to convey that belief, but he or she wrote that text thousands of years ago based on very limited knowledge. Is there any reason to believe it's true.

Is there any quote by Professor James Barr indicating that he believes it is true.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

At least, I hope, you agree with me that the author of genesis was trying to be literal. I hope I have cleared up why we take the text to at least means.

I don’t care if Professor James Barr thinks the Bible is a fairy tail cover to cover. The bible says that "all scripture is God breathed", one of Gods attributes is truth; he cannot lie. If he does lie, why should we believe anything else the Bible says which has no scientific data behind it? The virgin birth, fire from heaven, God engraving into stone tablets, all the miracles Jesus did, people being lifted into heaven, the resurrection, just to name a few.

“He or she wrote that text thousands of years ago based on very limited knowledge”

What knowledge surpasses an all knowing God?

BTW, you use the: chronological snobbery informal fallacy, when you say that the bible is old and therefore incorrect.

If Genesis 1-11 isn’t true literally the whole Bible falls apart. If we didn’t start dying at the fall and God called the world good before the fall, then why does he call death the last enemy? Why be punished with death if we were death if we were going to die anyway? If we were killing (evolution requires killing, no?) before the fall then why does he say that we are not to kill? Every Bible doctrine is based on the first 11 chapters of Genesis. If the first chapters are flawed, then the whole Bible is useless.

Without the definition of sin we can get from the first chapters of Genesis we are free to decide what sin is. This is a major problem we as Christians face in currently. We are told that Genesis is wrong; we are told that we are animals, having everything in common with animals; we “sin” because we have the DNA to do so. We are told that our behavior is relevant; we are told that there is not absolute good and bad, all of our rules are based on what is most evolutionarily beneficial. Evolutionists have changed the minds of many Christians. We are told that "educated" people believe evolution, the implication being that if you believe in a literal genesis you are uneducated and ignorant.

fogus · Feb 9, 2004, 08:58 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Quote:

Originally Posted by
fogus,

You make it look as though creationists have manipulated numbers to fit their beliefs. You go further to say that evolutionists have not changed their data but have changed their theories.

Scientific theory and knowledge is subject to peer review all over the world and is constantly changing.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes it is open to peer review. But both of our sides are guilty of missinformation and incorrect arguements at some time.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Quote:

Originally Posted by
You also claim that creationism is not a science because it searches for data to fit the belief that God created the earth in 6 days which are 24hrs. long each. What do you think the “scientists” were doing when they dug up Nebraska “man”?

The Nebraska man story is old and was never taken seriously for long by scientists. It is a good example of how science weeds out bad data and information.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This is an example of how evolutionists are guity of missinformation. Creationists are guilty of it to. Go to AiG and look at their discarded arguements list. This was published in their mag. I would appreciate if the evolutionists were to publish a similer list of all their discarded argurments. It is said that creationists do not acnowledge their mistakes and that evolutionists are not guilty of this. This is certainly not true.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Quote:

Originally Posted by
What do you think the mars rovers are doing? Why are we spending millions of dollars looking for water, or even a simple sign of life from outer space?

I think its great that were exploring and understanding the universe. President George Bush, a fundimentalist Chriatian, fully supports the exploration of Mars and space.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You can’t say that becase pres bush is a fundamentalest and that he believes that the rovers are good that all fundamentalists do. Science and religion are not doen by the majority rule, nor are they doen by the celebrity opinion rule.

Like it or not, we are spending millions on rovers looking for the source of life for evolution to start on earth. I am saying that the scientists who have decided to spend such vast amoutns of money on these things are biased, and i hope you agree. I am biased to. So are you. That is all im saying.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Quote:

Originally Posted by
What are we doing with all of the millions of dollars of research going towards evolutionary “science”?

Great! But not enough. A lot of the research goes to the field of genetics and the benifits have been significant.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

All I’m saying is that we are spending money on this rather than other things because we are biased. Did you realize how cheap it would be to send fresh water to the whole world? I herd something under $5 billion.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Quote:

Originally Posted by
If science really changes its truth to match reality then why does it not look at the other 90% of dating methods which point to a young earth? Why is the dynamo theory of the earth’s magnetic field accepted when the rapid decay theory fits the data with extreme accuracy in comparison? The answer is that every “scientist” has a bias! You can’t escape from it! I will agree with all of your numbers about the similarity between the DNA of humans and apes. In fact I will agree with you on everything you can observe. You can use carbon dating, but I won’t agree that the world is millions of years old because your math can pump out big numbers; carbon dating can’t give ages larger than 50,000 years accurately.

Much misinformation. Of course carbon dating cannot date anything older than about 50,000 years old. The dating methods for older rocks uses strategraphy and the radioactive decay of heavier elements.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I know, but the general public doesn’t. Numbers in the millions are thrown at them, and they take it in.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

What source do you quote that shows 90% of dating methods point to a young earth? The decay rates of some heavier elements have half lives greater than the time frame for a young earth.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

AiG has some nice lists. If you cant find one il e-mail them and ask them for their source of one i have.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

The rapid decay currently observed in the magnetic field fits the long history of the earth, because it fits the cyclic switch of the polarity of the earth over the history of millions of years.
Many scientists do have bias, just like the sky is blue, but peer review, critisim, new research and new research methods among the scientists weed out the false information like the 'Nebraska man' example you sited. Change is apart of the progress of science. That's why you are not riding a horse to work today.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

About the rapid decay theory:

(This is from Dr. Jay L. Wile's text book on physics)

“There are basically two theories that try to explain where this electrical current in the earth's core comes from. The first theory, called the dynamo theory, is believed by the majority of geologists. today. This theory says that the rotation of the earth, along with other, random currents that naturally occur in the liquid core of the earth, cause the liquid core to move in one general, overall direction. This motion causes the motion of electrical charges in the core, which in the end creates electrical current, just like electricity running through a wire. Just like Experiment 6.2, then, this would cause the earth to be magnetic.
The second theory, which is believed by a minority of geologists, is called the rapid decay theory. This theory states the electrical current of the earth is a consequence of how it was formed. If one makes a few assumptions about how the earth was formed, it is possible to actually calculate how much electrical current would be generated as a result. That electrical current would then begin to slow down over time, because electrical flow is resisted by all matter through which it flows. That is why the aluminum foil in the experiment got so hot. The aluminum foil resisted the flow of electricity, and a lot of heat was generated as the aluminum foil caused the electricity to slow down. In the end, then, Just as the flow of electricity is resisted: by the wire in which it moves, the flow of the electrical current in the earth's core would be resisted as well. This would cause the current to slow down, eventually stopping.
Do you see the difference between the two theories? The dynamo theory says that the 1 \motion of the earth and the random motion of the core work together to keep the electrical current in the core going. The rapid decay theory says that the earth's inner core is actually slowing down the flow of electricity that was started as a consequence of how the earth was formed. Well, since the majority of geologists believe the dynamo theory, it must be the correct one, right? Not necessarily. Science is not done by majority rule. It is done by experiment. We cannot directly observe the core of the earth to see whether it is helping the electrical current or slowing it down, but we can observe it indirectly.

How do we observe the inner core indirectly? We determined its size and composition by examining the way it responded to seismic waves. Another way to examine it indirectly is to make careful measurements of the magnetic field that it produces. Now remember how we try to determine the validity of a scientific theory when we are making indirect observations. We use the theory to make predictions, and then we compare those predictions to data that we collect. In the end, the theory that is most consistent with the data is the one that we should believe.
The first thing that we can observe about the magnetic field is that its strength is decaying. Over the past 150 years, scientists have been making careful measurements of the strength of earth's magnetic field, and these measurements tell us that over time, the earth's magnetic field is getting weaker. Which theory best explains this fact? Well, they both do, but the rapid decay theory does a slightly better job. The rapid decay theory predicts a rather steady decay in the earth's magnetic field, and that's what's been observed over the last 150 years. The dynamo theory predicts a changing magnetic field, because the random currents in the inner core will sometimes add to and sometimes take away from the movement caused by the earth's rotation. It could be that during the past 150 years, this is what has been occurring. Thus, both theories predict changes in the earth's magnetic field, but the rapid decay theory explains the data more directly.
The next thing we can observe about the magnetic field is that throughout the history of the earth, it has most likely reversed a few times. What this means is that during certain times in earth's past, there is evidence to indicate that the field actually pointed in the opposite direction. How do we know this? Well, there are certain materials in the lithosphere that are naturally magnetic. These materials always tend to point north, like a compass. In certain rock layers of the lithosphere, however, those natural magnets imbedded in the rock are pointed in the opposite direction. This would indicate that when those rock layers formed, the earth's magnetic field was actually pointed in the opposite direction, as compared to the direction in which it is pointed today.
Which theory explains this fact? Well, they both do. Once again, however, one theory has the edge. This time, it is the dynamo theory. The dynamo theory predicts such reversals, because it predicts that the random currents in the inner core will, every now and again, overpower the motion caused by the rotation of the earth. This will cause the electrical current to flow in the opposite direction, causing the magnetic field to reverse. The rapid decay model allows for magnetic field reversals, too, but only in the event of cataclysmic volcanic and geological activity. If such activity happened in the past, then the rapid decay theory allows for several magnetic reversals as well.
The final thing that we can observe is the magnetic fields of other planets. After all, any
theory that explains the earth's magnetic field should be able to explain the magnetic fields of the other planets that have them, right? It should also be able to explain why certain planets do not have magnetic fields. Which theory best fits the data in this case? Only the rapid decay theory. The rapid decay theory has correctly calculated the magnetic field of every planet that has one. In addition, the dynamo theory predicts a magnetic field on the planet Mars, while the rapid decay theory says there should not be one.

The data indicate that Mars has no magnetic field!

Conversely, the dynamo theory predicts no magnetic field on Mercury, while the rapid decay theory predicts that Mercury should have a magnetic field. It turns out that Mercury does have a magnetic field. Even more convincing, years before the Voyager spacecraft measured the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune, scientists used both the rapid decay theory and the dynamo theory to make predictions of the strength of both planets' magnetic fields. The rapid decay theory correctly predicted the results of Voyager's measurements, while the dynamo theory was off by a factor of 100,000!
In the realm of science, a theory that attempts to explain a phenomenon we cannot
observe directly must be consistent with any indirect measurements we make. In the case of a planet's magnetic field, only the rapid decay theory is consistent with all measured data. Why, then, do the majority of scientists believe in the dynamo theory? Well, it turns out that the rapid decay theory has two consequences that the majority of scientists don't want to believe. First, in order to be consistent with the idea of magnetic field reversals, the rapid decay theory must rely on a global, cataclysmic event. Most geologists don't believe that such an event ever occurred.

Geologists that believe in Noah's Flood, however, know that such an event did happen. Rapid decay theorists say that an event such as Noah's Flood explains these magnetic field reversals in the context of their theory.
The other consequence makes even more geologists uneasy. If you use the rapid decay theory to predict what the magnetic field was like in earth's past, you find out that the earth had to have been formed less than 10,000 years ago. Otherwise, the electrical current necessary to sustain the magnetic field would have been so large that it would cause the earth to explode!
This makes many geologists uneasy, because they want to believe that the earth is much older than that! Thus, since the rapid decay theory assumes that a world-wide, cataclysmic event such as Noah's Flood occurred sometime in earth's past, and since the rapid decay theory concludes that the earth must be less than 10,000 years old, most geologists reject it. They reject it despite the fact that it is the only theory consistent will all of the data collected!

Bible-believing Christians, of course, have no problem with assuming that Noah's Flood really happened and that the earth is less that 10,000 years old. Thus, it is easy for them to accept the consequences of the rapid decay model, and thus most of the scientists who believe the rapid decay model are Bible-believing Christians.

This brings me to one of the most important points you will ever learn when it comes to science: There is no such thing as an unbiased scientist. People seem to have the view that scientists are unbiased observers who look at the facts and draw conclusions only from those facts. Although this is the ideal scientist, such a scientist does not exist. A scientist's preconceived notions will strongly affect the way he or she does science! The two theories that try to explain the earth's magnetic field is a great illustration of this point. Scientists whose preconceived notions rule out Noah's Flood and a young earth refuse to believe the most scientifically valid theory for the earth's magnetic field. Instead, they rely on a theory that has been demonstrated to go against one of the major observables related to a planet's magnetic field! They go against the dictates of science solely because of bias caused by preconceptions. Scientists who do not have those preconceptions are free to choose the more scientifically valid theory. This is not to say that Bible-believing scientists are unbiased. They have their preconceptions as well. In this case, though, their preconceptions aid in following the dictates of Science.”

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

I do have a real problem with the 'Creation Science' advocates abusing science and taking quotes out of context like your example of the James Barr letter.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

About the letter: all i was saying was that the writer of genesis meant what he said, literally. I am not trying to say that because he says that the author meant that that it is so. I don’t care if he thinks the author is wrong, I was just saying that I believe genesis to mean 6, 24 hour days because the author meant that. I believe that the author of the letters is a man, but the author of the meaning is God, and I believe God meant 6, 24 hour days.

damnrad · Feb 10, 2004, 01:05 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

The writer may have intended to convey that belief, but he or she wrote that text thousands of years ago based on very limited knowledge. Is there any reason to believe it's true.

Is there any quote by Professor James Barr indicating that he believes it is true.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

At least, I hope, you agree with me that the author of genesis was trying to be literal. I hope I have cleared up why we take the text to at least means.

I don’t care if Professor James Barr thinks the Bible is a fairy tail cover to cover. The bible says that "all scripture is God breathed", one of Gods attributes is truth; he cannot lie. If he does lie, why should we believe anything else the Bible says which has no scientific data behind it? The virgin birth, fire from heaven, God engraving into stone tablets, all the miracles Jesus did, people being lifted into heaven, the resurrection, just to name a few.

“He or she wrote that text thousands of years ago based on very limited knowledge”

What knowledge surpasses an all knowing God?

BTW, you use the: chronological snobbery informal fallacy, when you say that the bible is old and therefore incorrect.

If Genesis 1-11 isn’t true literally the whole Bible falls apart. If we didn’t start dying at the fall and God called the world good before the fall, then why does he call death the last enemy? Why be punished with death if we were death if we were going to die anyway? If we were killing (evolution requires killing, no?) before the fall then why does he say that we are not to kill? Every Bible doctrine is based on the first 11 chapters of Genesis. If the first chapters are flawed, then the whole Bible is useless.

Without the definition of sin we can get from the first chapters of Genesis we are free to decide what sin is. This is a major problem we as Christians face in currently. We are told that Genesis is wrong; we are told that we are animals, having everything in common with animals; we “sin” because we have the DNA to do so. We are told that our behavior is relevant; we are told that there is not absolute good and bad, all of our rules are based on what is most evolutionarily beneficial. Evolutionists have changed the minds of many Christians. We are told that "educated" people believe evolution, the implication being that if you believe in a literal genesis you are uneducated and ignorant.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I have no idea what the 'original author' meant to convey. And since oral tradition was later written down, even pinning it down to a single 'original author' is likely wrongheaded. But all of that is irrelevant. Any believer in the messages of the Bible who seriously considers the question in a serious way will reject the idea that a literal reading of Genesis will say anything useful about the natural world -- the contradictions within Genesis are enough to dispel any such thought. In fact, given what science has shown us about the world, those who push literal interpretation of Genesis do nothing but cast religion into disrepute. In that respect, they must attack science -- all of it, not just evolution. Did they not, their position would be clearly ridiculous to them; and the horror of how they have defamed Christianity would be all too clear to them. Well, that's their problem. The problem of sensible people is to keep such nutcases from seriously infecting public policy, particularly from degrading science education.

Feb 10, 2004, 01:50 pm

The person who started all this mess within society, where greed controls the way you live, that person was a moron.. there is a much better way to have gone, and his obvious goal was to have everything for him, he wanted to have more of something than everyone else.
Instead of making a system created and run with money as a reward, we should have gone with popularity, doing good to make everyone admire and want to be like you.. if it was started then, it would have been a much better world.. now, we all wish we were Bill Gates, we all want that nice house, car, woman.. except Boston, they'll hump anything.. Remember when we were all kids? before we got our hands on money? We'd do things for our parents because we wanted to help, make them proud.. we all started off on the right track, kids are the answer, they are forced to become this evil creature called man.. and many kids can't understand it, they leave us through suicides, come home crying, because they just realized that now, they must be bad people to pull ahead, by selling lies and convincing people they want something they really don't want, but when you do that bad thing, you'll get a paycheck to buy cool shoes, nice car.. but beware, when you step on the wrong feet, Uncle Sam collects, and if he doesn't get you, your new ex wife will.. anyone else see the picture?

Capitalist Pig · Feb 10, 2004, 06:37 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (CitizenCOP,)
The person who started all this mess within society, where

Feb 7, 2004, 07:10 am	#203 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,472	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (makeshiftpatriot,) interesting... i'm new here, so i didn't have the time to read all 200 posts on this thread, and i appologize if what i say has been said already. How is creationism a science, when it is built entirely on making one claim, and searching for evidence of that one particular claim? In every college science class I've had so far, the professors have explained that science is based on the progression of ideas from one to the next, and whereas the "truth" of evolutionism is constantly evolving (new hypotheses being made about the mechanisms of evolution), creation "science" is not refined to fit the data, in fact, the exact opposite is true. the data of creation scientists is refined to fit the claim. there are some aspects of the scientific method that are present, but as a science, creationism is fundamentally flawed. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Not to be too picky, but there's no such thing as evolutionism, nor is there gravitism etc... But you're right, Creationism is flawed as a science because to start off with, they don't follow the scientific methods. Infact, I remember a certain Creationist research group whom have sworn an oath that no matter what their research result comes up with, they will always support creationism...oh good science there </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by one thing that confuses a lot of creationists is the nature of evolutionary biology. its designed to explain mechanisms by which these things happen, and have happened over large amounts of time, but not necessarily origins. whatever makes us human, or makes something alive is some entirely different debate, and perhaps where creationists should focus their efforts, rather than take the words of evolutionary biologists out of context to justify their claims. -b<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Most creationists don't even bother to learn the science before they attack the theory, they're not confused, just uneducated at most times and their only input has been brainwashing from their churches that an ancient book's word is absolute, despite what we can "see" with our eyes. For the creationists whom do know biology, or claim to know the science, they're showing ignorance of the greatest proportions, there is too much evidence correlating with evolution for a true scientist to ignore and then try to refute. Insanity doesn't come near to the word of what can describe their behaviour, it's too tame fitting. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 7, 2004, 10:57 am	#204 (permalink) (top)
Plaything48 Igneous Magma Location: London baby, yeah! Posts: 198	Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by jpapadpapa There are many questions that science cannot answer and there are many questions that are still unanswered by evolutionists, such as where did the original matter come from? As I said earlier, nothing comes from nothing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What type of matter are you referring to? Particle matter? A man has two reasons for doing anything --- a good reason and the real reason. Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular.

Feb 7, 2004, 04:15 pm	#205 (permalink) (top)
bmaestro Molten Ash Posts: 61	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Not to be too picky, but there's no such thing as evolutionism, nor is there gravitism etc...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Sorry about that slip, I've just been a little postmodern lately, and I guess I just wanted to look at evolutionary biology as another belief, with an equal capacity for explaining our world as anything else </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by There are many questions that science cannot answer and there are many questions that are still unanswered by evolutionists, such as where did the original matter come from? As I said earlier, nothing comes from nothing.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I had a really interesting conversation with a friend of mine the other day. She said that from what she's heard, a lot of physicists come to a conclusion that there must be a "god" of some sort, but some intangible force that creates order and regulates the way things work in the universe. But here we completely diverge from the topic, and get into something more philisophical. I think the main problem with the debate of evolution vs. creation is that they're trying to explain different things. Evolution tries to track the changes in organisms through time, and does so successfully, both in mathematical modeling and actual field-collected data. This is something scientific and tangible. Creationism, despite its posturing as a science, tries to explain origins, and thats a philisophical debate about the intangible. The two theories could be perfectly complementary, if the bible weren't taken so literally. So, why is it? -b

Feb 8, 2004, 07:32 pm	#206 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (makeshiftpatriot,) The two theories could be perfectly complementary, if the bible weren't taken so literally. So, why is it? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Very good question. Why is the bible taken so literally? The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 9, 2004, 05:46 pm	#207 (permalink) (top)
fogus Molten Ash Posts: 67	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig Any input? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I am awaiting an article about the nylon bug. When I get it I will up date you. ~ Justin ~Fogus

Feb 6, 2004, 07:34 pm	#201 (permalink) (top)
PeterAngelo Igneous Magma Posts: 169	God is everything and we are just "strings" attached to eternity. Take whatever pleasure is available now - there is no tomorrow.

Feb 6, 2004, 08:59 pm	#202 (permalink) (top)
bmaestro Molten Ash Posts: 61	interesting... i'm new here, so i didn't have the time to read all 200 posts on this thread, and i appologize if what i say has been said already. How is creationism a science, when it is built entirely on making one claim, and searching for evidence of that one particular claim? In every college science class I've had so far, the professors have explained that science is based on the progression of ideas from one to the next, and whereas the "truth" of evolutionism is constantly evolving (new hypotheses being made about the mechanisms of evolution), creation "science" is not refined to fit the data, in fact, the exact opposite is true. the data of creation scientists is refined to fit the claim. there are some aspects of the scientific method that are present, but as a science, creationism is fundamentally flawed. one thing that confuses a lot of creationists is the nature of evolutionary biology. its designed to explain mechanisms by which these things happen, and have happened over large amounts of time, but not necessarily origins. whatever makes us human, or makes something alive is some entirely different debate, and perhaps where creationists should focus their efforts, rather than take the words of evolutionary biologists out of context to justify their claims. -b

Feb 9, 2004, 06:10 pm	#208 (permalink) (top)
fogus Molten Ash Posts: 67	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by (makeshiftpatriot,) The two theories could be perfectly complementary, if the bible weren't taken so literally. So, why is it? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Very good question. Why is the bible taken so literally? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The reason we creationists take Genesis literally is because that is the way the writer of genesis intended it to be. “As far as I know there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the idea that: (a) Creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to the later stages in the Biblical story; © Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the ark” ~ Professor James Barr, Hebrew scholar and Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures at Oxford University. Personal letter dated April 23, 1984. ~Fogus

Feb 9, 2004, 06:23 pm	#209 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) I believe you yourself made the point earlier that science is constantly changing. The difference is that you assume that evolution is true and base all your arguments on that, whereas I assume that the Bible is true. There are many questions that science cannot answer and there are many questions that are still unanswered by evolutionists, such as where did the original matter come from? As I said earlier, nothing comes from nothing.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You just don't seem to get it. Science does not ASSUME that evolution is true. Science accepts evolution because it has validated the change that occurred over long time periods. It accepts evolutionary theory because that theory best explains such change. In short, science seeks the answers; it doesn't assume them from the start. You can't see this because, as you yourself have avowed, you start with an assumption about the answers -- you assume that an account in the Bible is literally true. In consequence, you are willing ignore the facts, or to twist the data to fit your assumptions.

Feb 9, 2004, 06:30 pm	#210 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PeterAngelo,) Some minds are physically, chemically, genetically, and forever unable to absorb information and process it in any meaningful way. IQ tests measure intelligence for a reason. Not all are created equal - intellectually. Those "lesser" minds will never be able to believe that the laws of physics are the only laws in the universe that matter. It is too frightening to believe that we (individually) will cease to exist forever. The argument over creationism v. evolution is an argument between the smart and the dumb. It cannot be won. The percentage of dumb people is constant. The support they give to state authority, based on fake gods (render to Caesar and all that nonesense), insures a control mechanism for the "sheep" (as the church likes to call the dumb). There is good business in keeping the argument going, both for fund raising and deliberate divisiveness. It is never ending, and it is boring. Whatever!!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> And you are mixing apples and oranges. The 'laws' physics, actually the theories of physics, are science's best job to date at explaining the universe. Are there other laws that matter? That's a meaningless question unless the term 'laws' is defined. The so-called laws of physics are merely statements of what are, so far as we know, invarying relationships. Newton's laws were great laws that seemed certainly true -- until Einstein showed how they were wrong. Science, including phsyics, is about learning, not about certainty. As to afterlife, gods, supernatural, and so on -- no one knows. Science doesn't know, I don't know, you don't know, the pope doesn't know. But most importantly, such things have nothing to do with science, at least not science as we know it now. As Eugenie Scott says, science can say nothing about God until it develops a theometer.

Feb 9, 2004, 06:37 pm	#211 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by (makeshiftpatriot,) The two theories could be perfectly complementary, if the bible weren't taken so literally. So, why is it? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Very good question. Why is the bible taken so literally? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The reason we creationists take Genesis literally is because that is the way the writer of genesis intended it to be. “As far as I know there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the idea that: (a) Creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to the later stages in the Biblical story; © Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the ark” ~ Professor James Barr, Hebrew scholar and Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures at Oxford University. Personal letter dated April 23, 1984.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The writer may have intended to convey that belief, but he or she wrote that text thousands of years ago based on very limited knowledge. Is there any reason to believe it's true. Is there any quote by Professor James Barr indicating that he believes it is true. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 9, 2004, 06:41 pm	#212 (permalink) (top)
fogus Molten Ash Posts: 67	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by interesting... i'm new here, so i didn't have the time to read all 200 posts on this thread, and i appologize if what i say has been said already. How is creationism a science, when it is built entirely on making one claim, and searching for evidence of that one particular claim? In every college science class I've had so far, the professors have explained that science is based on the progression of ideas from one to the next, and whereas the "truth" of evolutionism is constantly evolving (new hypotheses being made about the mechanisms of evolution), creation "science" is not refined to fit the data, in fact, the exact opposite is true. the data of creation scientists is refined to fit the claim. there are some aspects of the scientific method that are present, but as a science, creationism is fundamentally flawed. one thing that confuses a lot of creationists is the nature of evolutionary biology. its designed to explain mechanisms by which these things happen, and have happened over large amounts of time, but not necessarily origins. whatever makes us human, or makes something alive is some entirely different debate, and perhaps where creationists should focus their efforts, rather than take the words of evolutionary biologists out of context to justify their claims. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You make it look as though creationists have manipulated numbers to fit their beliefs. You go further to say that evolutionists have not changed their data but have hanged their theories. You also claim that creationism is not a science because it searches for data to fit the belief that God created the earth in 6 days which are 24hrs. long each. What do you think the “scientists” were doing when they dug up Nebraska “man”? What do you think the mars rovers are doing? Why are we spending millions of dollars looking for water, or even a simple sign of life from outer space? What are we doing with all of the millions of dollars of research going towards evolutionary “science”? If science really changes its truth to match reality then why does it not look at the other 90% of dating methods which point to a young earth? Why is the dynamo theory of the earth’s magnetic field accepted when the rapid decay theory fits the data with extreme accuracy in comparison? The answer is that every “scientist” has a bias! You can’t escape from it! I will agree with all of your numbers about the similarity between the DNA of humans and apes. In fact I will agree with you on everything you can observe. You can use carbon dating, but I won’t agree that the world is millions of years old because your math can pump out big numbers; carbon dating can’t give ages larger than 50,000 years accurately. ~Fogus

Feb 9, 2004, 07:10 pm	#213 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by (makeshiftpatriot,) The two theories could be perfectly complementary, if the bible weren't taken so literally. So, why is it? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Very good question. Why is the bible taken so literally? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The reason we creationists take Genesis literally is because that is the way the writer of genesis intended it to be. His letter is to often quoted on fundimentalist web sites. His letter refers to the sincerity of the writer and not as to whether it should be considered true today. “As far as I know there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the idea that: (a) Creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to the later stages in the Biblical story; © Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the ark” ~ Professor James Barr, Hebrew scholar and Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures at Oxford University. Personal letter dated April 23, 1984.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Quoting one letter out of context of James Barr works does not do him justice. James Barr was raised as a fundimentalist Christian and studied theology in college. He later turned away from fundimentalism is considered to be one of the fore most scholars today on Old Testiment Theology and fundimentalism. The following book is unfortunately out of print, but other works of his are available. 'Fundamentalism' by James Barr 1984 Barr covers what fundamentalists think on a variety of issues, but it's not just a checklist of doctrinal positions. He covers the more recent scholarly evangelicals as well as more traditional evangelicalism, also tries to understand the roots of the beliefs from the last century and before. As well as a clear understanding of the movement, Barr has a very good insight into the problems caused by a fundamentalist approach to the Bible. His excellent analyses are too numerous to cite. For anyone who hasn't heard of Barr, he's an Old Testament scholar. According to the back of another book I have of his he's: Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, the Divinity School, Nashville and Regius Professor of Hebrew Emeritus in the University of Oxford The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 9, 2004, 07:32 pm	#214 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by fogus, You make it look as though creationists have manipulated numbers to fit their beliefs. You go further to say that evolutionists have not changed their data but have changed their theories. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Scientific theory and knowledge is subject to peer review all over the world and is constantly changing. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by You also claim that creationism is not a science because it searches for data to fit the belief that God created the earth in 6 days which are 24hrs. long each. What do you think the “scientists” were doing when they dug up Nebraska “man”? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The Nebraska man story is old and was never taken seriously for long by scientists. It is a good example of how science weeds out bad data and information. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by What do you think the mars rovers are doing? Why are we spending millions of dollars looking for water, or even a simple sign of life from outer space? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I think its great that were exploring and understanding the universe. President George Bush, a fundimentalist Chriatian, fully supports the exploration of Mars and space. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by What are we doing with all of the millions of dollars of research going towards evolutionary “science”? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Great! But not enough. A lot of the research goes to the field of genetics and the benifits have been significant. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by If science really changes its truth to match reality then why does it not look at the other 90% of dating methods which point to a young earth? Why is the dynamo theory of the earth’s magnetic field accepted when the rapid decay theory fits the data with extreme accuracy in comparison? The answer is that every “scientist” has a bias! You can’t escape from it! I will agree with all of your numbers about the similarity between the DNA of humans and apes. In fact I will agree with you on everything you can observe. You can use carbon dating, but I won’t agree that the world is millions of years old because your math can pump out big numbers; carbon dating can’t give ages larger than 50,000 years accurately.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Much misinformation. Of course carbon dating cannot date anything older than about 50,000 years old. The dating methods for older rocks uses strategraphy and the radioactive decay of heavier elements. What source do you quote that shows 90% of dating methods point to a young earth? The decay rates of some heavier elements have half lives greater than the time frame for a young earth. The rapid decay currently observed in the magnetic field fits the long history of the earth, because it fits the cyclic switch of the polarity of the earth over the history of millions of years. Many scientists do have bias, just like the sky is blue, but peer review, critisim, new research and new research methods among the scientists weed out the false information like the 'Nebraska man' example you sited. Change is apart of the progress of science. That's why you are not riding a horse to work today. I do have a real problem with the 'Creation Science' advocates abusing science and taking quotes out of context like your example of the James Barr letter. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 9, 2004, 08:00 pm	#215 (permalink) (top)
fogus Molten Ash Posts: 67	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The writer may have intended to convey that belief, but he or she wrote that text thousands of years ago based on very limited knowledge. Is there any reason to believe it's true. Is there any quote by Professor James Barr indicating that he believes it is true. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> At least, I hope, you agree with me that the author of genesis was trying to be literal. I hope I have cleared up why we take the text to at least means. I don’t care if Professor James Barr thinks the Bible is a fairy tail cover to cover. The bible says that "all scripture is God breathed", one of Gods attributes is truth; he cannot lie. If he does lie, why should we believe anything else the Bible says which has no scientific data behind it? The virgin birth, fire from heaven, God engraving into stone tablets, all the miracles Jesus did, people being lifted into heaven, the resurrection, just to name a few. “He or she wrote that text thousands of years ago based on very limited knowledge” What knowledge surpasses an all knowing God? BTW, you use the: chronological snobbery informal fallacy, when you say that the bible is old and therefore incorrect. If Genesis 1-11 isn’t true literally the whole Bible falls apart. If we didn’t start dying at the fall and God called the world good before the fall, then why does he call death the last enemy? Why be punished with death if we were death if we were going to die anyway? If we were killing (evolution requires killing, no?) before the fall then why does he say that we are not to kill? Every Bible doctrine is based on the first 11 chapters of Genesis. If the first chapters are flawed, then the whole Bible is useless. Without the definition of sin we can get from the first chapters of Genesis we are free to decide what sin is. This is a major problem we as Christians face in currently. We are told that Genesis is wrong; we are told that we are animals, having everything in common with animals; we “sin” because we have the DNA to do so. We are told that our behavior is relevant; we are told that there is not absolute good and bad, all of our rules are based on what is most evolutionarily beneficial. Evolutionists have changed the minds of many Christians. We are told that "educated" people believe evolution, the implication being that if you believe in a literal genesis you are uneducated and ignorant. ~Fogus

Feb 9, 2004, 08:58 pm	#216 (permalink) (top)
fogus Molten Ash Posts: 67	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Quote: Originally Posted by fogus, You make it look as though creationists have manipulated numbers to fit their beliefs. You go further to say that evolutionists have not changed their data but have changed their theories. Scientific theory and knowledge is subject to peer review all over the world and is constantly changing. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes it is open to peer review. But both of our sides are guilty of missinformation and incorrect arguements at some time. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Quote: Originally Posted by You also claim that creationism is not a science because it searches for data to fit the belief that God created the earth in 6 days which are 24hrs. long each. What do you think the “scientists” were doing when they dug up Nebraska “man”? The Nebraska man story is old and was never taken seriously for long by scientists. It is a good example of how science weeds out bad data and information. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is an example of how evolutionists are guity of missinformation. Creationists are guilty of it to. Go to AiG and look at their discarded arguements list. This was published in their mag. I would appreciate if the evolutionists were to publish a similer list of all their discarded argurments. It is said that creationists do not acnowledge their mistakes and that evolutionists are not guilty of this. This is certainly not true. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Quote: Originally Posted by What do you think the mars rovers are doing? Why are we spending millions of dollars looking for water, or even a simple sign of life from outer space? I think its great that were exploring and understanding the universe. President George Bush, a fundimentalist Chriatian, fully supports the exploration of Mars and space. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You can’t say that becase pres bush is a fundamentalest and that he believes that the rovers are good that all fundamentalists do. Science and religion are not doen by the majority rule, nor are they doen by the celebrity opinion rule. Like it or not, we are spending millions on rovers looking for the source of life for evolution to start on earth. I am saying that the scientists who have decided to spend such vast amoutns of money on these things are biased, and i hope you agree. I am biased to. So are you. That is all im saying. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Quote: Originally Posted by What are we doing with all of the millions of dollars of research going towards evolutionary “science”? Great! But not enough. A lot of the research goes to the field of genetics and the benifits have been significant. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> All I’m saying is that we are spending money on this rather than other things because we are biased. Did you realize how cheap it would be to send fresh water to the whole world? I herd something under $5 billion. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Quote: Originally Posted by If science really changes its truth to match reality then why does it not look at the other 90% of dating methods which point to a young earth? Why is the dynamo theory of the earth’s magnetic field accepted when the rapid decay theory fits the data with extreme accuracy in comparison? The answer is that every “scientist” has a bias! You can’t escape from it! I will agree with all of your numbers about the similarity between the DNA of humans and apes. In fact I will agree with you on everything you can observe. You can use carbon dating, but I won’t agree that the world is millions of years old because your math can pump out big numbers; carbon dating can’t give ages larger than 50,000 years accurately. Much misinformation. Of course carbon dating cannot date anything older than about 50,000 years old. The dating methods for older rocks uses strategraphy and the radioactive decay of heavier elements. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I know, but the general public doesn’t. Numbers in the millions are thrown at them, and they take it in. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by What source do you quote that shows 90% of dating methods point to a young earth? The decay rates of some heavier elements have half lives greater than the time frame for a young earth. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> AiG has some nice lists. If you cant find one il e-mail them and ask them for their source of one i have. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The rapid decay currently observed in the magnetic field fits the long history of the earth, because it fits the cyclic switch of the polarity of the earth over the history of millions of years. Many scientists do have bias, just like the sky is blue, but peer review, critisim, new research and new research methods among the scientists weed out the false information like the 'Nebraska man' example you sited. Change is apart of the progress of science. That's why you are not riding a horse to work today. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> About the rapid decay theory: (This is from Dr. Jay L. Wile's text book on physics) “There are basically two theories that try to explain where this electrical current in the earth's core comes from. The first theory, called the dynamo theory, is believed by the majority of geologists. today. This theory says that the rotation of the earth, along with other, random currents that naturally occur in the liquid core of the earth, cause the liquid core to move in one general, overall direction. This motion causes the motion of electrical charges in the core, which in the end creates electrical current, just like electricity running through a wire. Just like Experiment 6.2, then, this would cause the earth to be magnetic. The second theory, which is believed by a minority of geologists, is called the rapid decay theory. This theory states the electrical current of the earth is a consequence of how it was formed. If one makes a few assumptions about how the earth was formed, it is possible to actually calculate how much electrical current would be generated as a result. That electrical current would then begin to slow down over time, because electrical flow is resisted by all matter through which it flows. That is why the aluminum foil in the experiment got so hot. The aluminum foil resisted the flow of electricity, and a lot of heat was generated as the aluminum foil caused the electricity to slow down. In the end, then, Just as the flow of electricity is resisted: by the wire in which it moves, the flow of the electrical current in the earth's core would be resisted as well. This would cause the current to slow down, eventually stopping. Do you see the difference between the two theories? The dynamo theory says that the 1 \motion of the earth and the random motion of the core work together to keep the electrical current in the core going. The rapid decay theory says that the earth's inner core is actually slowing down the flow of electricity that was started as a consequence of how the earth was formed. Well, since the majority of geologists believe the dynamo theory, it must be the correct one, right? Not necessarily. Science is not done by majority rule. It is done by experiment. We cannot directly observe the core of the earth to see whether it is helping the electrical current or slowing it down, but we can observe it indirectly. How do we observe the inner core indirectly? We determined its size and composition by examining the way it responded to seismic waves. Another way to examine it indirectly is to make careful measurements of the magnetic field that it produces. Now remember how we try to determine the validity of a scientific theory when we are making indirect observations. We use the theory to make predictions, and then we compare those predictions to data that we collect. In the end, the theory that is most consistent with the data is the one that we should believe. The first thing that we can observe about the magnetic field is that its strength is decaying. Over the past 150 years, scientists have been making careful measurements of the strength of earth's magnetic field, and these measurements tell us that over time, the earth's magnetic field is getting weaker. Which theory best explains this fact? Well, they both do, but the rapid decay theory does a slightly better job. The rapid decay theory predicts a rather steady decay in the earth's magnetic field, and that's what's been observed over the last 150 years. The dynamo theory predicts a changing magnetic field, because the random currents in the inner core will sometimes add to and sometimes take away from the movement caused by the earth's rotation. It could be that during the past 150 years, this is what has been occurring. Thus, both theories predict changes in the earth's magnetic field, but the rapid decay theory explains the data more directly. The next thing we can observe about the magnetic field is that throughout the history of the earth, it has most likely reversed a few times. What this means is that during certain times in earth's past, there is evidence to indicate that the field actually pointed in the opposite direction. How do we know this? Well, there are certain materials in the lithosphere that are naturally magnetic. These materials always tend to point north, like a compass. In certain rock layers of the lithosphere, however, those natural magnets imbedded in the rock are pointed in the opposite direction. This would indicate that when those rock layers formed, the earth's magnetic field was actually pointed in the opposite direction, as compared to the direction in which it is pointed today. Which theory explains this fact? Well, they both do. Once again, however, one theory has the edge. This time, it is the dynamo theory. The dynamo theory predicts such reversals, because it predicts that the random currents in the inner core will, every now and again, overpower the motion caused by the rotation of the earth. This will cause the electrical current to flow in the opposite direction, causing the magnetic field to reverse. The rapid decay model allows for magnetic field reversals, too, but only in the event of cataclysmic volcanic and geological activity. If such activity happened in the past, then the rapid decay theory allows for several magnetic reversals as well. The final thing that we can observe is the magnetic fields of other planets. After all, any theory that explains the earth's magnetic field should be able to explain the magnetic fields of the other planets that have them, right? It should also be able to explain why certain planets do not have magnetic fields. Which theory best fits the data in this case? Only the rapid decay theory. The rapid decay theory has correctly calculated the magnetic field of every planet that has one. In addition, the dynamo theory predicts a magnetic field on the planet Mars, while the rapid decay theory says there should not be one. The data indicate that Mars has no magnetic field! Conversely, the dynamo theory predicts no magnetic field on Mercury, while the rapid decay theory predicts that Mercury should have a magnetic field. It turns out that Mercury does have a magnetic field. Even more convincing, years before the Voyager spacecraft measured the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune, scientists used both the rapid decay theory and the dynamo theory to make predictions of the strength of both planets' magnetic fields. The rapid decay theory correctly predicted the results of Voyager's measurements, while the dynamo theory was off by a factor of 100,000! In the realm of science, a theory that attempts to explain a phenomenon we cannot observe directly must be consistent with any indirect measurements we make. In the case of a planet's magnetic field, only the rapid decay theory is consistent with all measured data. Why, then, do the majority of scientists believe in the dynamo theory? Well, it turns out that the rapid decay theory has two consequences that the majority of scientists don't want to believe. First, in order to be consistent with the idea of magnetic field reversals, the rapid decay theory must rely on a global, cataclysmic event. Most geologists don't believe that such an event ever occurred. Geologists that believe in Noah's Flood, however, know that such an event did happen. Rapid decay theorists say that an event such as Noah's Flood explains these magnetic field reversals in the context of their theory. The other consequence makes even more geologists uneasy. If you use the rapid decay theory to predict what the magnetic field was like in earth's past, you find out that the earth had to have been formed less than 10,000 years ago. Otherwise, the electrical current necessary to sustain the magnetic field would have been so large that it would cause the earth to explode! This makes many geologists uneasy, because they want to believe that the earth is much older than that! Thus, since the rapid decay theory assumes that a world-wide, cataclysmic event such as Noah's Flood occurred sometime in earth's past, and since the rapid decay theory concludes that the earth must be less than 10,000 years old, most geologists reject it. They reject it despite the fact that it is the only theory consistent will all of the data collected! Bible-believing Christians, of course, have no problem with assuming that Noah's Flood really happened and that the earth is less that 10,000 years old. Thus, it is easy for them to accept the consequences of the rapid decay model, and thus most of the scientists who believe the rapid decay model are Bible-believing Christians. This brings me to one of the most important points you will ever learn when it comes to science: There is no such thing as an unbiased scientist. People seem to have the view that scientists are unbiased observers who look at the facts and draw conclusions only from those facts. Although this is the ideal scientist, such a scientist does not exist. A scientist's preconceived notions will strongly affect the way he or she does science! The two theories that try to explain the earth's magnetic field is a great illustration of this point. Scientists whose preconceived notions rule out Noah's Flood and a young earth refuse to believe the most scientifically valid theory for the earth's magnetic field. Instead, they rely on a theory that has been demonstrated to go against one of the major observables related to a planet's magnetic field! They go against the dictates of science solely because of bias caused by preconceptions. Scientists who do not have those preconceptions are free to choose the more scientifically valid theory. This is not to say that Bible-believing scientists are unbiased. They have their preconceptions as well. In this case, though, their preconceptions aid in following the dictates of Science.” </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I do have a real problem with the 'Creation Science' advocates abusing science and taking quotes out of context like your example of the James Barr letter. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> About the letter: all i was saying was that the writer of genesis meant what he said, literally. I am not trying to say that because he says that the author meant that that it is so. I don’t care if he thinks the author is wrong, I was just saying that I believe genesis to mean 6, 24 hour days because the author meant that. I believe that the author of the letters is a man, but the author of the meaning is God, and I believe God meant 6, 24 hour days. ~Fogus

Feb 10, 2004, 01:05 pm	#217 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The writer may have intended to convey that belief, but he or she wrote that text thousands of years ago based on very limited knowledge. Is there any reason to believe it's true. Is there any quote by Professor James Barr indicating that he believes it is true. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> At least, I hope, you agree with me that the author of genesis was trying to be literal. I hope I have cleared up why we take the text to at least means. I don’t care if Professor James Barr thinks the Bible is a fairy tail cover to cover. The bible says that "all scripture is God breathed", one of Gods attributes is truth; he cannot lie. If he does lie, why should we believe anything else the Bible says which has no scientific data behind it? The virgin birth, fire from heaven, God engraving into stone tablets, all the miracles Jesus did, people being lifted into heaven, the resurrection, just to name a few. “He or she wrote that text thousands of years ago based on very limited knowledge” What knowledge surpasses an all knowing God? BTW, you use the: chronological snobbery informal fallacy, when you say that the bible is old and therefore incorrect. If Genesis 1-11 isn’t true literally the whole Bible falls apart. If we didn’t start dying at the fall and God called the world good before the fall, then why does he call death the last enemy? Why be punished with death if we were death if we were going to die anyway? If we were killing (evolution requires killing, no?) before the fall then why does he say that we are not to kill? Every Bible doctrine is based on the first 11 chapters of Genesis. If the first chapters are flawed, then the whole Bible is useless. Without the definition of sin we can get from the first chapters of Genesis we are free to decide what sin is. This is a major problem we as Christians face in currently. We are told that Genesis is wrong; we are told that we are animals, having everything in common with animals; we “sin” because we have the DNA to do so. We are told that our behavior is relevant; we are told that there is not absolute good and bad, all of our rules are based on what is most evolutionarily beneficial. Evolutionists have changed the minds of many Christians. We are told that "educated" people believe evolution, the implication being that if you believe in a literal genesis you are uneducated and ignorant.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I have no idea what the 'original author' meant to convey. And since oral tradition was later written down, even pinning it down to a single 'original author' is likely wrongheaded. But all of that is irrelevant. Any believer in the messages of the Bible who seriously considers the question in a serious way will reject the idea that a literal reading of Genesis will say anything useful about the natural world -- the contradictions within Genesis are enough to dispel any such thought. In fact, given what science has shown us about the world, those who push literal interpretation of Genesis do nothing but cast religion into disrepute. In that respect, they must attack science -- all of it, not just evolution. Did they not, their position would be clearly ridiculous to them; and the horror of how they have defamed Christianity would be all too clear to them. Well, that's their problem. The problem of sensible people is to keep such nutcases from seriously infecting public policy, particularly from degrading science education.

Feb 10, 2004, 01:50 pm	#218 (permalink) (top)
CitizenCOP Guest Posts: n/a	The person who started all this mess within society, where greed controls the way you live, that person was a moron.. there is a much better way to have gone, and his obvious goal was to have everything for him, he wanted to have more of something than everyone else. Instead of making a system created and run with money as a reward, we should have gone with popularity, doing good to make everyone admire and want to be like you.. if it was started then, it would have been a much better world.. now, we all wish we were Bill Gates, we all want that nice house, car, woman.. except Boston, they'll hump anything.. Remember when we were all kids? before we got our hands on money? We'd do things for our parents because we wanted to help, make them proud.. we all started off on the right track, kids are the answer, they are forced to become this evil creature called man.. and many kids can't understand it, they leave us through suicides, come home crying, because they just realized that now, they must be bad people to pull ahead, by selling lies and convincing people they want something they really don't want, but when you do that bad thing, you'll get a paycheck to buy cool shoes, nice car.. but beware, when you step on the wrong feet, Uncle Sam collects, and if he doesn't get you, your new ex wife will.. anyone else see the picture?

Feb 10, 2004, 06:37 pm	#219 (permalink) (top)
Capitalist Pig Market Anarchist Location: United States Posts: 650	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (CitizenCOP,) The person who started all this mess within society, where