And they believe this is science and not a religion.

1983 | P J Banyard

[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.

[GlennD]

“You need “evidence” before you spout off about what someone else “believes”.”(mauwiyah)

Evidence of what? I still don’t now what you are asking. If you have a problem, say what it is, and I’ll answer.-Glenn

[muawiyah]

You had no evidence regarding what I "believe" ~ no statements from me in that regard.

On the other hand we did have an earlier poster ridiculing the idea that there could be anything other than what could be directly measured (not inferentially like Dark Energy and Dark Matter).

Your response to my response to his post leaves you in the position of ridiculing the idea that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

And here you were putting words in my mouth ~~~ something about removing the timber from your eye.....

[Creationist]

Dear Mr. expert,

What would a global flood look like approximately 4000 years later. That is one that completely covering the globe at least a mile high, with major volcanic activity and large chunks being blown into the upper atmosphere and some into outer space. Hmm?

Radiometric dating is an assumptive science, first off "you" assume that the universe is old, second you assume that decay rates are constant and do not have any thing that effects them. If you say contrary you are lying to yourself and the public.

[Coyoteman]

Dear Mr. expert,

What would a global flood look like approximately 4000 years later. That is one that completely covering the globe at least a mile high, with major volcanic activity and large chunks being blown into the upper atmosphere and some into outer space. Hmm?

That's easy. Just examine areas that are known to have flooded in historic times and extrapolate. Erosional evidence and silt deposits would be some of the major things to look for.

Radiometric dating is an assumptive science, first off "you" assume that the universe is old, second you assume that decay rates are constant and do not have any thing that effects them. If you say contrary you are lying to yourself and the public.

There is a significant difference between pointing out that radiometric dating is based on assumptions and you showing that those assumptions are wrong! If those assumptions are accurate and supported by other lines of evidence, then there is nothing wrong with using them!

While you are not interested in radiometric dating and related sciences except to make unsupported denials of their accuracy to support your religious belief in a young earth, here are some good links for any lurkers who want more information:

ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How precise is radiocarbon dating?

Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?

Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?

Tree Ring and C14 Dating

Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.

[GlennD]

“And here you were putting words in my mouth ~~~ something about removing the timber from your eye.....”

I’m afraid you’ve lost me again. Maybe I am too stupid to be in this environment, and don’t have the type or numbers of degrees necessary. I have no problem acknowledging the truth or factuality of things that cannot be measured, and I have no doubts about, “the idea that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.”

If I have a timber in my eye, please tell me what it is, and I’m glad to try to remove it. Apparently, I have offended you in some way, which I’ve already apologized for, I think. I haven’t an idea what the problem is. I don’t recall what posts in response to response to response means or what the problem is. If I have insulted you or degraded your feelings, just tell me what it is, and I’ll clearly spell out what I think (if I can) or apologize again. I’m not here to insult people, and I hate wasting time wondering what it is I’ve done to hurt somebody’s feelings. If you have a beef with me, just tell me what it is, and maybe we can come to some sort of agreement or a place where we part way in our line of thought.-Glenn

[Creationist]

You have a typical no god answer.

Plus you are trying to use minuscule examples to extrapolate what a large global event would look like.

Sorry but I do not believe that a small scale flood with volcanic, earth quake, and shape shifting of the continents has ever been observed in a small scale. That is all those things happening at the same time all in one location. That means the volcano was under water during eruption, this volcano before eruption was above water.

You do not admit that you assume old age when you take a study. You do not admit that your assumption of old age is do to you lack of belief in the supernatural. You do not admit that evolution has never been observed and that radiometric dating is an assumptive science used to validate old ages for the hypothesis of evolution to probably work.

You do not admit that there is not one rock with an age stamped upon it to prove radiometric dating works and is correct.

[Creationist]

You have never read a school text book, or raised the question if I evolved where did I come from.

Evolutionist will always cry foul when you bring up origins as it is not part of the theory, well that is a lie.

Darwin said we are all related then from what? Chemical soup in a reducing atmosphere that never existed, noted by the evidence in the rocks.

[allmendream]

And then “evolutionist” would translate as “Scientist I do not agree with, including geologists, cosmologists, astronomers, physicists and biologist”?

What a nice catch-all phrase! And best of all it makes it sound like you are objecting to a very small part of modern science instead of almost all of it.

[Coyoteman]

You have a typical no god answer.

I am doing science. What are you doing? Apologetics?

If so, just admit it. And then stop pretending that your posts mean anything to the realm of science.

[Creationist]

From the Book
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.

Your statement,
"Matter does not make up the universe. Matter plus form make substance. Also, there was no time before the BB, nor was there space since those concepts did not exist before reason."

I underlined the part that you basically repeated.

From Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary 1970. Page 1111

mat'ter, n.
matter,stuff of which anything is composed
1. what a thing is made of; constituent substance or material.
2 . what all (material) things are made of; whatever occupies space and is perceptible to the senses in some way: in modern physics, matter and energy are regarded as equivalents mutually convertible according to Einstein's formula, E=mc2 (i.e.,energy equals mass multiplied by the square of the velocity of light); in dualistic thinking, matter is regarded as the opposite of mind, spirit, etc.

Your argument is pointless matter plus form makes substance.

If nothing exploded and created dust that is matter it does not have to be planets, stars or people to be matter light is matter.

It appears you are trying to add more philosophy to the theory of evolution to make it more religious. (by the way I do not adhere to the big dud)

[Creationist]

You use the word Apologetics as though it were a bad word.

From Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary 1970, page 86
a pol o get ic {Gr. apologitikos, fit for a defense, from apologeisthai to speak in defense; apo, from and legein, to speak}

So it seems to me Coyoteman you do your share of Apologetics.

[Creationist]

You are just attacking my intelligence as all who adhere to the theory of evolution.

Evolution is a philosophy that has no provable testable facts. Variation is not proof adaptation is not proof, and fossils are definitely not proof.

Geology does not require the theory of evolution to study it. Chemistry does not require the theory to study it. Astronomy does not require the theory to study it. Physics does not require the theory to study it. And Biology definitely does not require any part of the theory to study it.

Please show me one living transitional life lizard to bird, fish to lizard, monkey to man?

[Coyoteman]

You use the word Apologetics as though it were a bad word.

From Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary 1970, page 86 a pol o get ic {Gr. apologitikos, fit for a defense, from apologeisthai to speak in defense; apo, from and legein, to speak}

So it seems to me Coyoteman you do your share of Apologetics.

To many scientists, "apologetics" is a bad word because it implies not just defense of a position, but defense of religion and religious belief.

Try a google search, "define:apologetics" and the following is what you get: eight definitions, of which seven involve a defense of Christianity.

The methods of apologetics are not scientific, but rather involve philosophy, theology, and rhetoric. Its goals are not discovery, but rather defending an a priori belief. In fact, today we most often see apologetics used to defend a priori beliefs against scientific discoveries!

Apologetics has come to be the opposite of science.

Here are the definitions:

• The term apologetics comes from the Greek apologia, which means "defense" or "answer." Apologetics is the task of defending a particular idea or belief system and answering its critics. The origin of the concept of apologetics lies in the beginnings of Christianity. Between the second and fourth century, a number of Christian teachers wrote defenses of Christianity against pagan critics.

• The defense of the Christian faith on intellectual grounds by trained theologians and philosophers.

• A conscious, articulated defense of the claims of the Christian Faith. The two main apologetic methods are classical (evidential) and presuppositional.

• The branch of theology which deals with the defensive facts and proofs of Christianity

• Argumentative defence. That part of theology which tries to show the reasonableness of Christian faith and to refute objections to it.

• an evangelistic approach that is concerned with increasing understanding of Christianity by answering reasonable questions about the faith (Whittaker).

• the branch of theology that is concerned with the defense of Christian doctrines

• Apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of a position. Someone who engages in apologetics is called an apologist. The term comes from the Greek word apologia (Ἀπολογία), meaning the defense of a position against an attack, not from the English word apology, which is exclusively understood as a defensive plea for forgiveness for an action that is open to blame.

[bert]

Bible babble.....

[Hacksaw]

So it seems to me Coyoteman you do your share of Apologetics.

No, threadcrapping is his forte'.

[RightWhale]

matter,stuff of which anything is composed 1. what a thing is made of; constituent substance or material.

What a thing is made of implies a maker. You are done right there.

[RightWhale]

show me one living transitional life lizard to bird, fish to lizard, monkey to man

Why persist in looking for the wrong thing? That transitional form is a misconception and has nothing to do with evolution.

[Creationist]

Sorry Coyoteman, your education is failing you. That is not the definition of the word Apologetics.

You can change it to suit your needs but that does not nullify the original meaning.

You every time you post against the belief in creation and support of evolution are practicing Apologetics.

Apologetics does not imply any where in the dictionary as a defense in religion.

Sorry you lost that one buddy. Bad form read more.

[Creationist]

Then evolution is a philosophy and not a science as evolution is something evolving into something else.

Adaptation is not addition of new information, it is a trait existent within the organism.

[Creationist]

Naturalist mumbo jumbo.