40% of Americans belive the world was created 6000-years ago

[Agnostic75]

I could say the same thing about God. If Jesus returned to earth and performed miracles right before your eyes, at some point you would have to accept that right?

Yes, and if God did that, you would have a better case than you do now, but might does not make right.

There is no proof positive for either side of this discussion. For me to say I know for sure would be a lie. Both sides are dependant on faith to one degree or another to support their claims. I could say when God created heaven and earth, there was a big bang. Others could say there is no God, but neither side has positive proof of their claims. Why is it so hard for science to admit it's limitations?

Yes, science has limitations, but so does the Bible. A God could have caused a global flood to occur, but if he did, for some odd and unplained reasons he temporarily changed the law of gravity so that fossils and sediments were sorted in ways that have convinced the vast majority of experts, including some Christian experts, that a global flood did not occur. If the law of gravity has been consistent, it is virtually certain that a global flood did not occur.

All that you are really arguing for is inerrancy. I invite you to participate in my thread on inerrancy.

 

[I Am]

And I could say, I wish everyone recieved a Christian education. Then you would think as I do.

You can blame school systems, and to some degree I have to agree that public education is spewing out ignorant ill prepared students to make their own way in the world.

On the other hand, we have some really good students who in spite of their inferior education do quite well for themselves.

What is very telling is, do you believe educators have a responsibility to indoctrinate students away from religion?

To me religion is not the issue. And this may be off-topic, but it's my concern that education in general, especially in "English" classes, is extremely lacking. As a writer I often fear the demise of reading (that is of actual literature.... please no Twilight).

America is breeding a culture of ignorance. We are obsessed with laziness, with mediocrity, with disambition in this country.

 

[Gunfingers]

THE FALL and THE FLOOD changed the earth's surface... GOD may have designed sinless man to travel the universe, but the FALL would have precluded Adam from doing such things.

But we've seen what man looked like prior to a few thousand years ago, and it's pretty clear that he couldn't walk on the moon.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Who says science has no limitations? It must rely on empirical evidence to support its theories.

I don't believe so. What evidence do we have that man can control the earth's temperature? Every day people state it as fact that we need to do something about this issue.

We don't have any more control of the earth than a flea has control where it's host goes

Science has nothing to do with God. God, being by definition free from natural laws, is not an area which science can prove or disprove. Belief in a God relies entirely on faith. While science relies on available empirical evidence.

Science depends on faith that the available evidence is correctly supporting their theory.

Science and religion depend on faith to one degree or another.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

THE FALL and THE FLOOD changed the earth's surface...

How? How would a global flood change the Earth surface (as well as its core, like you talked about before) this way?

GOD may have designed sinless man to travel the universe, but the FALL would have precluded Adam from doing such things.

In what way?

 

[LittleNipper]

Which means what to people who don't believe in your god? Mab the giant housecat told me that she created a finished world last Thursday with all of the people created having memories of lives before the moment of creation. Go ahead and disprove it.

See how irrelevant that is? Science doesn't deal in fairy tails. It deals in learning as much as it can about the natural world. One of those things is learning how old the earth is and how it formed. If i'm reading that last line correctly, your point is that we shouldn't bother learning all we can about the natural world, or in other words, that we shouldn't do science. Are you willing to go on record as being against science?

Well, the "giant housecat" didn't reveal anything for me. GOD had HIS revelation written down over thousands of years by various writers and yet everything lines up as a perfect standard for what every human should believe. And I can also witness changed lives of those who place their faith in the GOD I worship. You seem a very irritable person full of hoplessness and barbs.

Science should not accept educated opinions nor hypotheses, but absolute facts. Unfortunately, science is only infallible if it is a repeatable experiment that can be eyewitnessed. Evolution is not.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I don't believe so. What evidence do we have that man can control the earth's temperature? Every day people state it as fact that we need to do something about this issue.

We don't have any more control of the earth than a flea has control where it's host goes

Again, oversimplification. Man does not "control the earth's temperature", mans' activities, however, influence the climate. Just as a flea influences the dogs health.

Science depends on faith that the available evidence is correctly supporting their theory.

Science and religion depend on faith to one degree or another.

There is a vast degree of difference between faith based on overwhelming evidence, and faith based on revelations.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Again, oversimplification. Man does not "control the earth's temperature", mans' activities, however, influence the climate.

I don't think this has been proven positively.

What you don't understand is, I never said how old I thought the world is. You just assume that I am one of the 40%. I just hold scientists to their own standards and don't put much faith in theories until proven by replication. That would be proof positive.

There is a vast degree of difference between faith based on overwhelming evidence, and faith based on revelations.

This is where we disagree. Faith is faith and fact is fact. You can spin this all you like but science is dependant on faith just like religion.

Science is becoming a religion to many while others use science to further their political objectives just like the religious do.

The similarities are right in front of us, but all these wannabe scientists are ignoring some of the available data while inventing their own.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Science should not accept educated opinions nor hypotheses, but absolute facts. Unfortunately, science is only infallible if it is a repeatable experiment that can be eyewitnessed. Evolution is not.

Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is a collection of observable, testable, and verifiable hypothesis that attempt to explain the mechanisms of Evolution. All evidence and observations support both Evolution and the Theory of Evolution.

Also.

Gravity is a fact. The Theory of Gravity is a collection of observable, testable, and verifiable hypothesis that attempt to explain the mechanisms of Gravity. All evidence and observations support both Gravity and the Theory of Gravity.

And.

Circuits, or routing matter through a loop, is a fact. Circuit Theory is a collection of observable, testable, and verifiable hypothesis that attempt to explain the mechanisms of Circuits. All evidence and observations support both Circuits and Circuit Theory.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I don't think this has been proven positively.

What you don't understand is, I never said how old I thought the world is. You just assume that I am one of the 40%. I just hold scientists to their own standards and don't put much faith in theories until proven by replication. That would be proof positive.

I am not assuming anything about you. Other than I assume you believe science and religion are on equal footing in regards to faith.
Do you hold religion to the same standards as you hold science?

This is where we disagree. Faith is faith and fact is fact. You can spin this all you like but science is dependant on faith just like religion.

Science is becoming a religion to many while others use science to further their political objectives just like the religious do.

The similarities are right in front of us, but all these wannabe scientists are ignoring some of the available data while inventing their own.

Yes, we disagree. I require an abundance of evidence before belief. Religious belief does not generally require any evidence at all. other than personal revelation.

 

[Willamena]

I could say the same thing about God.

You could, but that'd be a non sequitur.

For me to say I know for sure would be a lie.

For you to know anything "for sure" about anything in the sense you mean would be "a lie". And yet, we are sure of things. We do know things.

Both sides are dependant on faith to one degree or another to support their claims.

And both sides are also dependent upon knowledge to support their claims. Faith and knowledge are brothers, not father and son.

I could say when God created heaven and earth, there was a big bang.

Figuratively speaking, sure. It happens in every moment.

 

[Agnostic75]

I never said how old I thought the world is. You just assume that I am one of the 40%. I just hold scientists to their own standards and don't put much faith in theories until proven by replication. That would be proof positive.

The vast majority of experts, including some Christian experts, believe that a global flood did not occur, that the earth is old, and that if a God exists, he has used evolution to create life slowly over time. Do you disagree with any of those positions?

What standards do you recommend for evaluating worldviews?

Do you believe that you would have become a Christian during any time period, and no matter where you lived, assuming that you had read the Bible?

 

[LittleNipper]

Science relys on overwhelming evidence to reach conclusions. religion relies on personal experience and pure faith.


Evolution has been brought into the discussion as an element of science.



As I said, all available evidence points to the occurrence of the Big Bang. The most conclusive being the observation of cosmic background radiation. Secondly,the universe is expanding—meaning that the separations between galaxies are becoming larger and larger. Also, the Big Bang perfectly explains the abundance of helium and other nuclei like deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) in the universe. A hot, dense, and expanding environment at the beginning could produce these nuclei in the abundance we observe today. All this supports the Big Bang explanation for the origins of the Universe.
As long as new evidence continues to support the Big Bang theory, it will be accepted as a fact. If it is found that continuing discoveries do not support the theory, it must be discarded or altered to fit the evidence. As of right now, evidence continues to support the Big Bang theory.
Science relies on evidence. It relies on logical conclusions based on the evidence. To say "we do not know for certain" is an oversimplification. The "degree of faith" is a faith in the consistency of the evidence. Fortunately this "faith" is not dogmatic and can change as our knowledge of the workings of the nature increase. This is why science continues to search for answers. It would be foolish to say "we have all the answers we need". Or "this answer is correct so there is no need to continue investigation".

So who determinds what exactly constitutes "overwhelming" evidence? What maybe overwhelming to one might just be something to ignore by another?

 

[johnhanks]

GOD had HIS revelation written down over thousands of years by various writers...

What a very strange thing to do. Almost as if he wanted his revelation to be indistinguishable from the accumulated speculations of hundreds of generations of fallible humans.

... and yet everything lines up as a perfect standard for what every human should believe.

But 'lining up' is the last thing it does. Christians are constantly having to come up with contrived explanations of why this or that stern OT injunction is no longer in force. As I said, uncannily as though it were entirely the product of humans codifying the temporary mores of their particular time and place.

Science should not accept educated opinions nor hypotheses, but absolute facts. Unfortunately, science is only infallible if it is a repeatable experiment that can be eyewitnessed. Evolution is not.

This is abysmal. The structure of science rests wholly on hypotheses and their testing: it is not just the collection and cataloguing of 'absolute facts', whatever you think they are. Evolution is tested all the time: it could in principle be falsified every time, for example, a new fossil bed is uncovered. Its resilience in the face of all this testing make it, as others have pointed out, as much a fact as gravitation.

 

[tumbleweed41]

So who determinds what exactly constitutes "overwhelming" evidence? What maybe overwhelming to one might just be something to ignore by another.

What a very telling statement from a Creationist.

 

[LittleNipper]

In other words,

You have absolutely no evidence other than your reveled revelation for what you are saying. No geological, cosmological or biological evidence at all for a young earth, the flood, or special creation. You base your entire view on the supernatural.

You really have no evidence that the earth was not at one time rather smooth. You have only conjecture and no actual scientific first hand observation. I on the otherhand, have what purports to be a revelation from GOD. Now, if the Bible cannot be unbiasedly proved wrong in any area that I can investigate ---- why must one assume that it cannot be valid where no human endeavor is possible.

 

[Jose Fly]

You really have no evidence that the earth was not at one time rather smooth.

Actually, it was banana shaped.

I on the otherhand, have what purports to be a revelation from GOD.

Nope, sorry. God told me it was banana shaped. Do you have any evidence that it wasn't?

Now, if the Bible cannot be unbiasedly proved wrong in any area that I can investigate ---- why must one assume that it cannot be valid where no human endeavor is possible.

So if you happen to get leprosy, I'm sure we can count on you to employ the "Biblical cure" and not get anywhere near modern science. After all, that would be ridiculously hypocritical of you, and we can't have that!

 

[LittleNipper]

But we've seen what man looked like prior to a few thousand years ago, and it's pretty clear that he couldn't walk on the moon.

We do not know what the Universe was like prior to the FALL or the FLOOD. Honestly, I can imagine that asteroid strikes and meteors might just be the result of decay rather than what GOD's creation originally intended.

It is possible that the very trigger of the FLOOD was spawned the moment Adam sinned, and that all creators on the moon, etc., are the result of what took aim at planet earth as a direct result of the FALL of man. My own imaginings are only limited to GOD's Biblical revelation coupled with scientic determinations. But unlike evolution and Uniformitarianism, I must consider GOD's revelation relevant and not take it upon myself to assume anything. I might add, that what I do ponder and perhaps reasonably conclude is not a conclusion at all. I do not even consider anything I've previously stated concerning the FLOOD, creators, etc., as absolutes.
Such simply helps me understand what sorts of issues are facing secular determinations which are not focused on GOD and HIS truth at all.

 

[LittleNipper]

To me religion is not the issue. And this may be off-topic, but it's my concern that education in general, especially in "English" classes, is extremely lacking. As a writer I often fear the demise of reading (that is of actual literature.... please no Twilight).

America is breeding a culture of ignorance. We are obsessed with laziness, with mediocrity, with disambition in this country.

I totally agree. My conclusion is that the problem with education today is that there are no absolutes desired. Students are not really taught to be discerning or really inquisitive.

They are pressured not the make waves in the peer groups and in the classrooms.

 

[tumbleweed41]

You really have no evidence that the earth was not at one time rather smooth. You have only conjecture and no actual scientific first hand observation.

Actually, the Earth was rather smooth...about 510 Million years ago. However, if the flood was about 4000 years ago, we have a plethora of evidence that demonstrates that it was not smooth at that time, or in the millions of years prior to the purported flood.

I on the otherhand, have what purports to be a revelation from GOD. Now, if the Bible cannot be unbiasedly proved wrong in any area that I can investigate ---- why must one assume that it cannot be valid where no human endeavor is possible.

A literal interpretation of the Bible in relation to natural events has been shown to be incorrect.