Religious

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by TJDave

I surrender.

Your stupidity is way better than whatever I am.

No, you just hide your superior stupidity better since you have never defended anything on this forum. This speaks to your lack of passion over your world view, and this is probably because that view has about as much depth to it as a mud puddle, since it is rooted in Materialism.

Boxcar

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Mr. Hcap: Therefore, using starlight as an argument against a young universe is self-defeating because it's self-refuting
!
But, of course, this doesn't stop unbelieving scientists. When they run into a brick wall, all they do is build a "workaround" by calling Dial-a-Theory.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...tarlight-prove

Box, this paper is worse than speculation and NONE of what he says can ever be proven. Lisle didn’t give any way of actually proving his hypothesis experimentally.

“That which can be presented without proof can be dismissed without proof” — Hitchens

However I will point out major problems with a few of his main points..

His explanation for how distant starlight is compatible with a 6 day creation only a few thousand years ago is very, very weak. It essentially consists of immediately throwing out the conventional science just because it conflicts with scripture and then proposing that "creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically" Most of Lisle's points just begin with the claim that the Bible must be true

1-The Constancy of the Speed of Light

Lisle...

"Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.

But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened"

....I won't bother with this. It is absurd, and he himself objects to this point but goes on to a few others

2-The Assumption of Rigidity of Time

Lisle...
"It seems hard to believe that velocity or gravity would affect the passage of time since our everyday experience cannot detect this. After all, when we are traveling in a vehicle, time appears to flow at the same rate as when we are standing still. But that’s because we move so slowly compared to the speed of light, and the earth’s gravity is so weak that the effects of time-dilation are correspondingly tiny. However, the effects of time-dilation have been measured with atomic clocks.

Since time can flow at different rates from different points of view, events that would take a long time as measured by one person will take very little time as measured by another person. This also applies to distant starlight. Light that would take billions of years to reach earth (as measured by clocks in deep space) could reach earth in only thousands of years as measured by clocks on earth. This would happen naturally if the earth is in a gravitational well, which we will discuss below.

Many secular astronomers assume that the universe is infinitely big and has an infinite number of galaxies. This has never been proven, nor is there evidence that would lead us naturally to that conclusion. So, it is a leap of “blind” faith on their part. However, if we make a different assumption instead, it leads to a very different conclusion. Suppose that our solar system is located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies. Although this cannot be proven for certain at present, it is fully consistent with the evidence; so it is a reasonable possibility.

In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well. This term means that it would require energy to pull something away from our position into deeper space. In this gravitational well, we would not “feel” any extra gravity, nonetheless time would flow more slowly on earth (or anywhere in our solar system) than in other places of the universe. This effect is thought to be very small today; however, it may have been much stronger in the past.

...Ridiculous and he should know better as an a astrophysicist. The effect IS very small at moderate gravitational bodies with moderate gravitational fields. He is proposing enough gravity to slow light down by a factor of 2,166,667 If we were in a "gravity well with such a huge field caused by our solar system being located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies", local space would be quite distorted and light would bend around these galaxies and our planetary neighbors and even here on earth. There would be no straight lines visible. Anywhere.All bodies big and small would exhibit totally different huge gravitational accelerations. If we are part of this huge "gravitational well, the Earth would exhibit the same gravity as it's environs. Galileo, Newton would rush back to their drawing boards. All the spacecraft launched would act totally different than what we have observed.

Patently absurd!!

3-Assumptions of Synchronization
Lisle...

"Imagine that a plane leaves a certain city at 4:00 p.m. for a two-hour flight. However, when the plane lands, the time is still 4:00. Since the plane arrived at the same time it left, we might call this an instantaneous trip. How is this possible? The answer has to do with time zones. If the plane left Kentucky at 4:00 p.m. local time, it would arrive in Colorado at 4:00 p.m. local time. Of course, an observer on the plane would experience two hours of travel. So, the trip takes two hours as measured by universal time. However, as long as the plane is traveling west (and providing it travels fast enough), it will always naturally arrive at the same time it left as measured in local time.

There is a cosmic equivalent to local and universal time. Light traveling toward earth is like the plane traveling west; it always remains at the same cosmic local time. Although most astronomers today primarily use cosmic universal time (in which it takes light 100 years to travel 100 light-years), historically cosmic local time has been the standard. And so it may be that the Bible also uses cosmic local time when reporting events.

Since God created the stars on Day 4, their light would leave the star on Day 4 and reach earth on Day 4 cosmic local time. Light from all galaxies would reach earth on Day 4 if we measure it according to cosmic local time. Someone might object that the light itself would experience billions of years (as the passenger on the plane experiences the two hour trip). However, according to Einstein’s relativity, light does not experience the passage of time, so the trip would be instantaneous. Now, this idea may or may not be the reason that distant starlight is able to reach earth within the biblical timescale, but so far no one has been able to prove that the Bible does not use cosmic local time. So, it is an intriguing possibility".

If pigs could fly...pig fences would be useless.

I am not going to say much other than this raise so many questions that you would ignore any way, I will simply say....

"And God said, "Let there be light", and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day" and the darkness he called "night". And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day., and the sun --I got news for you-a star- was created 3 days earlier. My guess is the locals did not know this simple fact and wrote the review of Genesis without the benefit of Lisle

There are other issues with this paper. Feel free to argue it assuming you understand it.

I will not be holding my breath.

[hcap]

Curiously Conservapedia the so-called conservative answer to Wiki has an article on the "Starlight problem" Towards the end it discusses PROBLEMS with the "gravity well" supposition similar to my objections. However overall it takes the same flawed approach that the bible can't be wrong.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But I have also said that Catastrophism (opposed to the assumption of Uniformatariansim) could very have well played a huge role in the earth appearing as old it is. There is scriptural evidence that would support this supposition.

http://www.oldearth.org/catastrophism.htm


Catastrophism – The belief that the past history of the earth and of living things has been interrupted or greatly influenced by natural catastrophes occurring on a worldwide or very extensive scale


Uniformitarianism – The belief or principle that the past history of the earth and its inhabitants is best interpreted in terms of what is known about the present. Uniformitarianism explains the past by appealing to known laws and principles acting in a gradual, uniform way through past ages

By its very definition, you cannot believe in uniformitarianism if you believe the earth was created by God in six twenty-four hour days. That is because when you look at the present, and the geological processes we can observe, you must conclude that the earth is much older than 6,000 years. However, how about turning it around the other way...can the uniformitarianist believe in catastrophism?

Sure they can. I can look at the fossil record, and see events that occurred, like the ones alluded to by young earth creationists, and prove that catastrophic events do indeed happen. In fact, looking at the definition of Uniformitarianism, if we see catastrophes in the present, then we use them to understand the past. The problem is that young earth creation science proponents use these events to say the Flood caused it, and the old earth proponents say these catastrophic events occurred, but not during a single flood event, but through many separate, local flood events. Essentially, both of us believe in catastrophism!

So Toxi by the very nature of your ASSumptions (bible is inerrant, etc)you cannot have an open mind on these matters.

Creationists, use a crude caricature of the term Uniformitarianism. They think that geologists actually believe that absolutely everything in the past happened at a uniform rate at all times, without any sudden or catastrophic changes whatsoever. "To borrow a metaphor from Richard Dawkins, this would be like claiming that since the Israelites took 40 years to cross the desert and the desert is X number of miles long, they just have gotten up each day and traveled two and a half feet, then set up camp and did that every day for 40 years" That’s why it is profoundly silly for someone to point to evidence of a catastrophe in the geological record – an earthquake, a flood, an eruption, a meteor impact – and claim that this is somehow “evidence for catastrophism” and against “uniformitarianism”. No geologist on this planet has ever believed that catastrophes do not occur; indeed, the study of geology is made infinitely more interesting because a good portion of what is studied – that is, a good portion of the events that shaped the earth’s geological history – are catastrophic in nature.

Now Toxi please prove that the Laws of Science-physics , chemistry, hell even mathematics were NOT UNIFORM over the entire age of the universe. Remember my example of aliens in your garage. The burden is upon you

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Box, this paper is worse than speculation and NONE of what he says can ever be proven. Lisle didn’t give any way of actually proving his hypothesis experimentally.

“That which can be presented without proof can be dismissed without proof” — Hitchens

However I will point out major problems with a few of his main points..

His explanation for how distant starlight is compatible with a 6 day creation only a few thousand years ago is very, very weak. It essentially consists of immediately throwing out the conventional science just because it conflicts with scripture and then proposing that "creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically" Most of Lisle's points just begin with the claim that the Bible must be true

Err...you mean in the same way science throws out supernaturalism? Supernaturalism is tossed out because it conflicts with scientists' love affair with their moral darkness...because their deeds are evil (Jn 3:19).

What a timely devotion I read today by Charles Spurgeon. It's fits in beautifully with this vain discussion:

"Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea?" (Job 38:16)

Some things in nature must remain a mystery to the most intelligent and enterprising investigators. Human knowledge has bounds beyond which it cannot pass. Universal knowledge is for God alone. If this be so in the things which are seen and temporal, I may rest assured that it is even more so in matters spiritual and eternal. Why, then, have I been torturing my brain with speculations as to destiny and will, fixed fate, and human responsibility? These deep and dark truths I am no more able to comprehend than to find out the depth which coucheth beneath, from which old ocean draws her watery stores. Why am I so curious to know the reason of my Lord's providences, the motive of His actions, the design of His visitations? Shall I ever be able to clasp the sun in my fist, and hold the universe in my palm? yet these are as a drop of a bucket compared with the Lord my God. Let me not strive to understand the infinite, but spend my strength in love. What I cannot gain by intellect I can possess by affection, and let that suffice me. I cannot penetrate the heart of the sea, but I can enjoy the healthful breezes which sweep over its bosom, and I can sail over its blue waves with propitious winds. If I could enter the springs of the sea, the feat would serve no useful purpose either to myself or to others, it would not save the sinking bark, or give back the drowned mariner to his weeping wife and children; neither would my solving deep mysteries avail me a single whit, for the least love to God, and the simplest act of obedience to Him, are better than the profoundest knowledge. My Lord, I leave the infinite to Thee, and pray Thee to put far from me such a love for the tree of knowledge as might keep me from the tree of life.

Ahh...and herein is man's problem. Nearly all mankind has chosen to partake of the beautiful fruit of the "tree of [worldly] knowledge", thereby choosing Death over Life. Nothing has changed after all these millennia. There's nothing wrong with wanting knowledge in and of itself but knowledge, apart from the true knowledge of God and a loving relationship with Him, is not the chief end of man; therefore man will never attain to TRUE knowledge of anything until he chooses [spiritual] life.

So, here's the bottom line: The creation account provides plenty of inferential evidence that God created the Universe in a mature, fully functional state. To put that in today's vernacular -- from God's perspective, the universe is the plug 'n' play variety. Mankind can't do a thing to improve upon it, except to bring our lives in sync with the sole purpose for why we're here in the first place, which is to glorify Him in all we do. (Then life would be a a lot better on this earth.) You and I could go around forever in endless, fruitless discussion and vain speculations as to why science can't see things from the biblical perspective. But science will never in 500 billion years be able to harmonize the Natural with the Supernatural. The latter will never be fully understood by trying to bring a trillion naturalistic hypotheses to bear upon supernatural acts.

But we do know two things for certain: The world is filled with laws to govern human behavior and the natural realm is governed by laws also. These two indisputable facts presuppose a Lawgiver. In one instance, someone instilled his laws into the heart of Man, and in the other into the Natural Order of things so that the universe would continue to function until the end of the age.

By the way, the light of the first day, was not created light. The light that shone upon the earth the first day was light emanating from God's majestic glory. After all creation is redeemed from the curse of sin at Christ's return, and he recreates everything anew, we are told by the apostle:

Rev 22:5
5 And there shall no longer be any night; and they shall not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun , because the Lord God shall illumine them; and they shall reign forever and ever.
NASB

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

So Toxi by the very nature of your ASSumptions (bible is inerrant, etc)you cannot have an open mind on these matters.

Creationists, use a crude caricature of the term Uniformitarianism. They think that geologists actually believe that absolutely everything in the past happened at a uniform rate at all times, without any sudden or catastrophic changes whatsoever.

No, Creationists believe in what Lyell believed:

Uniformitarianism (proposed by English geologist Charles Lyell in the 1830s) is the theory that geologic processes that gradually shape Earth are slow and uniform through time. Lyell based his theory on Scottish geologist James Hutton's theory of gradualism, which states that landforms resulted from slow changes over a long time.

In other words, uniformitarianism is the belief that natural laws and processes today are essentially the same as they always have been on Earth. "The present is the key to the past."

Creationists believe that evolutionists have this all backwards in that the key to understanding the present is the past. For example, a universal flood in the past would certainly have had a profound impact on the present earth and its environment.

Boxcar

[hcap]

Originally Posted by tToxi

Err...you mean in the same way science throws out supernaturalism? Supernaturalism is tossed out because it conflicts with scientists' love affair with their moral darkness...because their deeds are evil (Jn 3:19).

Err.. I mean you must prove in a scientific context not a speculative one without any evidence that "supernaturalism" has occurred.

The use of the bible to prove supernatural events in the bible are real is absurd. You brought up God suspending and altering the laws of the universe vis a v Joshua. I shifted to a scientific context. I asked you about certain scientific techniques that refute your beliefs. You used Lisle's worthless paper to argue speed of light. OK, why not show me were my basic assumptions about the erroneous nature of Lisle's bogus "gravity well" were wrong. And if it makes you happy i will retract my comments about

throwing out the conventional science just because it conflicts with scripture and then proposing that "creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically" Most of Lisle's points just begin with the claim that the Bible must be true

But i will not throw out my other initial thought. Remember this is supposed to be a scientific rebuttal to conventional physics by Lisle.

Lisle didn’t give any way of actually proving his hypothesis experimentally.

“That which can be presented without proof can be dismissed without proof” — Hitchens

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Err.. I mean you must prove in a scientific context not a speculative one without any evidence that "supernaturalism" has occurred.

You still don't get it! The supernatural cannot be proved nor can it be understood. However, if God didn't reveal to us how the universe came into existence, then we would not have two opposing philosophies or world views, would we? We wouldn't have Materialism and Creationism, would we? The "use of the bible", therefore, is critically important in order to consider both world views! In short, you're asking me prove the miracle of creation. I have news for you: Evolutionists believe in their miracles of Evolution and Big Bang Bang!

Exhibit A: Blind Faith of Evolutionists implies a Belief in Miracles:

"I will not accept [creation] philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know to be scientifically impossible, spontaneous evolution." [Nobel laureate George Wald, Biochemical Science: An Inquiry into Life]

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism...It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." [Geneticist professor Richard Lewontin of Harvard Uniersity, Billions and billions of demons (review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997, Emphasis in original.]

“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic” - Scott Todd (an immunologist at Kansas State University).

“There is a popular image of human evolution that you’ll find all over the place, from the backs of cereal packets to advertisements for expensive scientific equipment. On the left of the picture there’s an ape—stocky, jutting jaw, hunched in the knuckle-walking position. On the right, a man—graceful, high forehead, striding purposefully into the future. Between the two is a succession of figures that become ever more like humans, as the shoulders start to pull back, the torso slims down, the arms retract, the legs extend, the cranium expands and the chin recedes. Our progress from ape to human looks so smooth, so tidy. It’s such a beguiling image that even the experts are loath to let it go. But it is an illusion.”12 12.Wood, B., “Who are we?” New Scientist 176(2366):44–47, 26 October 2002

"I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way." Colin Patterson, "Evolution and Creationism", speech at the American Museum of Natural History, New York, November 5, 1981

"By careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, it became an accepted doctrine [the law of biogenesis] that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications... For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry." - W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations Of Science, (New York: Viking Press, 1933), 94.

"My guess is that the popular theory of evolution appeals precisely as an alternative to the Christian view of man, which not only demands faith but imposes moral obligations. People who adopt Evolutionism are not driven to it by the consideration of the evidence; they like it without respect to the evidence, because they are passionate creatures, and it offers no moral impediment to their passions." - Joseph Sobran, "The Averted Gaze, Liberalism and Fetal Pain", Human Life Review (Spring, 1984), 10

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that." - W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55. George Ellis worked with Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose on the Big Bang Theory.

"In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth." - Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, New York: Holt, Rinhart and Winston, 1983, p23

Exhibit B: Atheists deify other things

"Ecological concern...starts with the premise that the Universe is God.” - Victor Ferkiss, Emeritus Professor of Government at Georgetown University, Science Digest, November 1981, 39.

“if we must worship a power greater than ourselves, does it not make sense to revere the Sun and stars?” - Carl Sagan, Cosmos (Random House, 1980), 243.

"Thou, nature, are my goddess, to thy laws my services are bound.” - Carl F Gauss, Cited in Bell, Men of Mathematics, p. 230. The lines are actually due to Shakespeare, but Gauss made them his motto. Gauss was a deist. [/i]

Exhibit C: Atheists admit they believe in miracles

"[The Big Bang] represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing, it represents a true miracle - transcending physical principles..." - Paul Davies, in the Edge of Infinity (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), 161.

"An honest man armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going." - Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p88

"The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. . . One (must) concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." - George Wald, ”The origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol.190, August 1954, 46. (all emphases by others)

Lots more revealing quotes from this site:

http://www.truth-that-matters.com/quotes.htm

In fact, way back when, on the "Interesting Find" (post 253) I posted several other quotes by more atheists/evolutionists when they, too, had their honest moments about the philosophy of Materialism. Here are a couple of those quotes:

"Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a nontheistic religion, a way of life."—*American Humanist Association, promotional brochure.

"It is a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds over men's minds."—*Encounter, November, p. 48 (1959).

(I'm so glad I found these and that my memory was jogged. Now, I'm pretty sure I have figured out PA's true religion! It would explain nicely why he has consistently been sympathetic toward these atheists and humanists, and how he could always exclude himself from their scorn and derision. Birds of a feather and all that good stuff...)

Again, once you take in and absorb all this testimony by Creation-deniers themselves, we would all do well to consider the testimony of an apostle about these deniers:

Rom 1:18-23
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures...28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
NASB

In short, these great philosophers of Materialism wind up worshiping the things of "nature". The natural world becomes their god(s).

Boxcar

[hcap]

You are a complete idiot. You argued radio isotope dating, the speed of light, and geology could not accurately tell us the age of the universe.

So far you have only posted one shi-ass paper by one dumb astrophysicist who TRIED to argue the science. (BTW, I am sure you did not read it.)

Where is your science? You said you believe in "real" science, ok use some to rebut those 3 mechanisms to gauge the age of the universe. Sophistry or telling us science and materialism is evil is a crock. Spare us pagers of materialism vs God. Talk science, not Boxcarian.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You are a complete idiot. You argued radio isotope dating, the speed of light, and geology could not accurately tell us the age of the universe.

So far you have only posted one shi-ass paper by one dumb astrophysicist who TRIED to argue the science. (BTW, I am sure you did not read it.)

Where is your science? You said you believe in "real" science, ok use some to rebut those 3 mechanisms to gauge the age of the universe. Sophistry or telling us science and materialism is evil is a crock. Spare us pagers of materialism vs God. Talk science, not Boxcarian.

You see, the Universe is truly your god. You don't want to talk science. You want to talk your god v. mine. Your faith v. mine. The problem with that is that your god is fallen mankind who is quite fallible and finite. Therefore, you faith is truly misplaced.

Now, I never said that science is evil per se. (Surely, however, the philosophy of Materialism is; for any philosophy that denies God or his truth must be evil.) However, even your own kind confesses that your/their "science" is simply a religion built upon blind faith in one miracle after another, which in turn is grounded in a bunch of a priori assumptions.

So, no...I'm not going to debate religions with you. You want to believe in Spontaneous Generation -- that Something miraculously came into existence from Nothing, go for it. But for this regenerated mind, that is beyond absurd.

Boxcar

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Toxicar

You see, the Universe is truly your god. You don't want to talk science.

I want to talk science schmuck!
I want to talk science schmuck!
I want to talk science schmuck!
I want to talk science schmuck!
I want to talk science schmuck!
I want to talk science schmuck!
I want to talk science schmuck!
I want to talk science schmuck!

You want to talk your god v. mine. Your faith v. mine. The problem with that is that your god is fallen mankind who is quite fallible and finite. Therefore, you faith is truly misplaced.

Now, I never said that science is evil per se. (Surely, however, the philosophy of Materialism is; for any philosophy that denies God or his truth must be evil.) However, even your own kind confesses that your/their "science" is simply a religion built upon blind faith in one miracle after another, which in turn is grounded in a bunch of a priori assumptions.

No one confesses any such thing.
SCIENCE IS MATERIALISM except when it studies energy!
No one confesses any such thing.
SCIENCE IS MATERIALISM except when it studies energy!
No one confesses any such thing.
SCIENCE IS MATERIALISM except when it studies energy!
No one confesses any such thing.
SCIENCE IS MATERIALISM except when it studies energy!
No one confesses any such thing.
SCIENCE IS MATERIALISM except when it studies energy!
No one confesses any such thing.
SCIENCE IS MATERIALISM except when it studies energy!
No one confesses any such thing.
SCIENCE IS MATERIALISM except when it studies energy!


So, no...I'm not going to debate religions with you. You want to believe in Spontaneous Generation -- that Something miraculously came into existence from Nothing, go for it. But for this regenerated mind, that is beyond absurd.

Extremely Toxicar

Once again you have said absolutely NOTHING. You can't because you know nothing about science. You demonstrate ths all the time with your dance around scientific issues.

Where and what is your "real science" and why can't you use it to describe why the 3 mechanisms I asked you about are erroneous?

[hcap]

Ok Toxi go here

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidenc...ecent_creation

Evidence against a recent creation

and check out modern techniques and methods to date the age of the Universe and the Earth

Evidence by minimum age:

>10,000 years

Dendrochronology
Human Y-chromosomal ancestry
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio dating
Rock varnish
Thermoluminescence dating

>100,000 years

Coral
Fission track dating
Ice layering
Lack of DNA in fossils
Permafrost
Weathering rinds

>1,000,000 years

Amino acid racemization
Baptistina asteroid family
Continental drift
Cosmogenic nuclide dating
Erosion
Geomagnetic reversals
Impact craters
Iron-manganese nodules
Length of the prehistoric day
Naica megacrystals
Nitrogen in diamonds
Petrified wood
Relativistic jets
Sedimentary varves
Stalactites
Space weathering
Distant starlight
Helioseismology
Lunar retreat
Radioactive decay


You know you can always stick your hands over your eyes, fingers in your ears jump up and down on one leg while babbling UMUMUMUMUMUMUMUM !!!! at the top of your lungs drowning out all facts and subjects other than Boxcarianism- a very fragile version of religion by an anal retentive ignorant old geezer who has the nerve to tell everyone else what to believe

[fast4522]

You both do not get it, it is not the chicken or the egg argument, tend to think you both run for the KY when you see each others post. Inside the church and inside your home are the absolute I got it right logic. Now this is a thread that is named such, but it should be a private or better yet sacred thing that is held in the heart and soul and not necessarily the mouth or keyboard. Funny how younger people have a better grasp on this than the guy closer to Saint Peters gates.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by fast4522

Now this is a thread that is named such, but it should be a private or better yet sacred thing that is held in the heart and soul and not necessarily the mouth or keyboard. .

Why?

[wes]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...caused-ice-age


Ice-Age and the flood. Fact or fiction?


wes