Posted on 09/03/2007 5:31:19 PM PDT by Creationist
In the opening of any book today that involves origins, dinosaurs, ECT. you can always expect to see the term billions of years as they know for a fact. Like some one was there to record this event.
Well here is another fine example of the evolutionist religious belief.
From the book Natural Wonders of the World, by P.J. Banyard, Page 6
Once there was nothing. There was no space and there was no time. (Now you will have to understand this if there is nothing the laws of conservation of energy state you can not create or destroy matter, in short nothing can not make something. This is a religious belief on the evolutionist part that this can happen.)(Here is the exciting part)Then,between 13 and 18 billion years ago, all the primeval matter which makes up the universe (here it comes)burst out from another dimension and exploded.
So no one was there to record when the event happend thats why they can not narrow down the time line, but hey the other dimension thing is cool.
They try to say my religious belief hinders my ability to discern science. Well you have a bigger faith based religion then I do. I have a God who told man how he did it (not all of the finer details) but that he did it. And you on the other hand have a belief system based upon interpretation of visible evidence today, with the assumed backward winding of the process to nothing exploding out of another dimension wow. All praise the mighty nothing.
The book is full of evolutionary statements that start off with the unsure words like; might have, could have, we think, seems to, and then finish as though they have the facts to prove their statements.
No one can prove 100% that the Bible is how the universe and all living things got here or that The Big Nothing From Another Dimension created the universe and all living beings.
But you can rest assured that science proves the Bible with out the use of smoke and mirrors more that the ever changing theory of evolution does.
exactly.....
the altar of neo darwinism is vast....
but remember, ITS SCIENCE, DAMMIT, SCIENCE, AND DONT YOU FORGET IT....
“SO THERE”, THEY SAID.
Philosophy and religion have not digested any of it to date.
Energy that can not be seen or measured. Yea that is science.
regardless of the ‘evidence’ support dark matter, that still leaves the conundrum of exactly where that matter came from ....
‘science and atheism’ have not digested any of it to date.
It's a creation myth minus God.
dark matter is has been championed over and over, and ‘evidence’ is needed to help the bb make sense, so of course, ‘evidence’ will be found to support it...
on a February 2004 press release from the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) was headlined as ‘Corrupted echos from the big bang?’
had this note in it:
‘But if correct, they suggest that the rumours that we are living in a “New Era of Precision Cosmology” may prove to be premature! “Our results may ultimately **undermine**
the belief that the Universe is dominated by an elusive *cold dark matter particle and the even more enigmatic dark energy”*, said Professor Shanks’
OK, smart guy, tell me all about the physical dimensions of Heaven ~
I think you have proved Creationist’s point, because Heaven is part of revealed faith, and nobody has the dimensions. All these guys were saying is, they have a faith, and you have a faith. The only difference is, they (we-I include myself) have preachers, priests, bishops and popes to guide us in faith and morals. Your religion has high priests who pawn themselves off as scientists.
You find it impossible to believe our God created all things from nothing. Now, you believe that some accident created everything from nothing. Seems like the real difference is which god you wish to believe in, my Creator God, or your accident god.
You realize, of course, your high priests are operating completely out of their chosen field, when they make such statements, don’t you? -Glenn
Much as when creationist criticize science based entirely on religious belief?
Hey, Coyoyeman. Haven’t posted with you for a while.
I have been to this site from our last discussion, and again, now. I think you need to back off from saying, “...points are rebutted...” That site more that rebuts, rather just denies. I certainly haven’t read it all, because there’s too much, but every one I look at, they (he? I guess it’s by Mark Isaac), he usually just puts forth his ideas, and sets up his own straw men arguments to knock down, as though they were serious arguments, and all that any creationist has. Seems rather weak, since most of these arguments are about philosophy, rather than science. The problems seem to arise when dime-store philosophers claim to be scientists.
Now, you have to admit that in the above article, (assuming it’s quoted accurately)that is not science, but philosophy or metaphysics. I’d like to think it’s math, but I know it’s not that either. -Glenn
I agree. The conclusion of that blog is:
But you can rest assured that science proves the Bible with out the use of smoke and mirrors more that the ever changing theory of evolution does.
I entirely agree with you that this is not science, but philosophy or metaphysics. And I must add, it is not even accurate.
But it also seems that the blog is using the term "evolution" with the creationist definition of "everything in science that we disagree with!"
Perhaps. I’d suppose there needs be some logic involved. I can’t accept a religious belief that defies logic, and I don’t believe that God made us with logical minds, just to provide illogical revelations. So, I suppose your term only applies if it’s “entirely” based on religious belief. The difference for me is that the teachers of my religion are trained in philosophy, and the ones with degrees in science are not.
My idea is that real science cannot be opposed to true faith, because truth is always true. There are only mistakes and mistaken ideas. If the religion is true, the science must agree with it, as well as the reverse.-Glenn
I suppose you are correct, but I can understand both views. The creationists are treated like a$$holes, and called stupid by “scientists,” very often, and at some point, it looks like all scientists are haters of God. Much the same, some creationists act like whatever comes from some quarters are lies. Sometimes, like in the above blog, “scientists” make such outrageous claims it deserves scorn. I suppose, cooler heads should prevail, but not usually. -Glenn
Such a statement has no meaning in science, which seeks the best explanation consistent with the evidence.
Science can rule out explanations that are not consistent with available evidence, but it will always be revising its theories and conjectures to fit new evidence.
This does not men science cannot be confident about its assertions; it just means that theories are continually being refined. As a general rule obsolete laws and theories remain true for the subset conditions known at the time they were formulated.
I too can understand both views.
Where a legitimate conflict arises is where some scientists extrapolate beyond what science can speak to. But very few scientists go about bashing religion.
But that is not what I have seen on this website this past year or two. Many, if not most, fundamentalist/creationists here deride science because it does not agree with, nor confirm, their particular religious beliefs. They rightly deride science for overstepping its bounds, but then they consistently commit the same logical error -- but in far greater numbers and with the absolute conviction of true zealots. And they can't see the comparison.
This brings up those cases where "creationists are treated like a$$holes, and called stupid by 'scientists...'”
Those cases are pretty much limited to where creationists make claims that extend into the scientific realm. The young age of the earth and a global flood about 4350 years ago are two prime examples. The twisted science that we see in these threads to try to force science to accommodate these two creationist ideas leads to the harsh responses from scientists.
Scientists are often very anal about the accuracy of their chosen fields. Many have studied for 30, 40, or 50 years, and peer-review is generally cut-throat. Junk science, or errors of any kind are absolutely hated--a single major error will end a scientist's career.
Most scientists do not take kindly to creationists whose only science education is a visit to AnswersInGenesis and a stay at a Holiday Inn Express telling them how to practice their chosen fields.
I have often suggested that scientists stick to their fields and creationists stick to theirs, but that doesn't seem viable on these threads.
Very well said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.