Creationist stakes $10,000 on contest between Bible and evolution

The Guardian ^ | March 25, 2013 | Amanda Holpuch

[WhiskeyX]

None of what you said is true. A given quantity of matter is a finite number. The ration betweeen the radioactive atoms and their decay atoms are finite, measurable, and comparable to samples observed in deep space and deep time some billions of years earlier. These are obserrvable, objective, and measurable events.

[tnlibertarian]

The cartoon misspells ‘Global Warming’ in the final panel.

[dartuser]

That is perfectly reasonable for studies in philosophy and theology, but is contradictory to natural sciencce and the scientific method of experimentation and observation of results.

So you would be in favor of presenting any evidence, whether it supports a current scientific theory or not, as long as its scientific evidence?

[TexasFreeper2009]

No where in the bible does it say the earth is 6,000 years old.

That’s just a liberal talking point to try to discredit Christianity.

[dartuser]

... except for that “evening and morning” thing ...

[WhiskeyX]

“Genesis just describes the order that the universe evolved.”

Explain how morning and night were created on Day One, seed beraing plants were created on Day Three, but the Sun and the Moon were not created to give light to the Earth until Day Four. So, how did the morning and night occur on Day One without the Sun that didn’t get created until Day Four? How did those seed bearing plants show up before the fishes and the Sun? Inquiring minds want to know?

[raygunfan]

yes, the half life and speed of light are demonstrable TODAY, however, lots of assumptions are built into what are BELIEVED to be the intial conditions, and those assumptions, viola’ all lead to really old ages...duh....

[jps098]

You mean like when they drilled the ice cores in Greenland and scientists declared the annual heating and cooling showed the 250 foot core to record 338 'years'. Only to be later told the cores were on top of P-38 aircraft landed and abandoned in 1942. In this case they were off by a mere 676%

Too bad the scientists assume the hard, melted snow and soft snow are annual occurances and not simply cold snow days followed by days warm enough to melt some of the snow.

[SoFloFreeper]

One of the more helpful newly published books regarding the context of Genesis...

[Zeneta]

Thanks for your reply.

I’ve watched and studied this debate for many years, and have resolved it to the presupposition and the foundation of modern scientific inquiries.

Materialism/Naturalism et al, is the foundation for virtually all science.

I have watched as more and more theories invoke “meta-physics” in order to resolve the problems they themselves uncover.

They try to use reason and logic to explain why reason and logic are a material deconstruction of atoms and molecules.

It is a trap of predestination.

“My mind is and my thoughts are a function of the physical connections in my brain, these connections and thoughts are out of my control”. There is no free will and no free thought for that matter.

Yet they use this supposedly “evolved function” to explain how we evolved.

They want their mind to be free to explain why your mind is not free.

[WhiskeyX]

For people who choose to live in a fantassy world of magic, nothing ever cvan be provalbe, so everything must become a matter of faith. In a universe createdd by a Creator using physical laws, the physical laws manifest themselves in the objects of Creation to whatever extent permitted by the principles of quatum mechanics and the heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Some pholospohers, natural philosophers, and Christian theologions would arggue that to deny the reality of a Universe createed by god is to deny the works of God and God himself. So, it may be debatable as to whether or not Creationism is a form of mystical and therefore Stanaic disavowal of God’s Universe and God. Note: this is one of the topics debated among friends, some of whom subsequently became Protestant and Catholic seminarians and theologions arguing various sidees and points in the debate.

[stormer]

You simply must tell me more about this!

[CatherineofAragon]

"To me, Genesis describes evolution perfectly. "

Creation and evolution are mutually exclusive. Post # 50.

[stormer]

Well, you posted it. Now you should probably read it.

[stormer]

What does the Oort Cloud save us from?

[Moonman62]

No where in the bible does it say the earth is 6,000 years old.

That’s just a liberal talking point to try to discredit Christianity.

Looks like there are a lot of liberal agents here on this thread to discredit Christianity and conservatism.

[WhiskeyX]

More malware

[dartuser]

So am I to believe that for thousands of years no one really understood how to interpret the Genesis account correctly ... until in 2013 ... a couple of theologians finally cracked the nut and explained it all ... that we have to look to the Egyptian and Mesopotamian creation accounts to really understand it ... ???

Might be an interesting read ... but I can guess that they don't take Genesis literally ...

Dallas seminary is not what it used to be ...

[WhiskeyX]

I don’t recall which post or posts they were, but there are a number of commentators of FR who do propose Bishop Usher’s interpretation of the Biblical timeline.

[Zeneta]

What does the Oort Cloud save us from?

The Oort Cloud, resolves the paradox of the age of comets.

Comets, should have burned up a long time ago, but they are here and in order to resolve this, Oort, proposed the Oort cloud, just outside of our solar system. Far enough away that NOBODY can or has observed it.

So much for materialism, BTW.

And this becomes accepted science?

BTW, he also proposed Dark matter and dark energy.

More stuff that can't be proven.

YET ?

That's the ticket.

Maybe we can invoke more stuff that can't be proven, like a multi-verse ?

Is that science?

Does it fit within the rules of science ?