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

[Jose Fly]

It's called statistical sampling.

 

[Walkntune]

It's called statistical sampling.

Did they do this in the Bible belt or California perhaps?

 

[Agnostic75]

Some things in the Bible have been proven, like the star of Bethlehem. An Astronomer's Explanation For The Star Of Bethlehem

I read the article. Your source Fred Grosse says that a planetary conjunction might have happened. He was not trying to make a case for the Bible. He was merely explaining what might have happened from a scientific perspective. If a planetary conjunction happened, that was secular history, not supernatural history. The Bible says that King Nebuchadnezzar existed. Skeptic scholars agree, but so what since that is merely secular history? There is nothing odd about religious writers mentioning real people, places, etc. where they live. If religious writers made up non-existent cities, they would immediately discredit themselves.

The story of the magi is mentioned in the book of Matthew. The story is probably a bogus attempt to fulfill Micah 5:2. The verse says "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

There is not any credible historical evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Jesus did not become ruler in Israel. It is probable that Old Testament Jews believed that a messiah would come to rule Israel in this life, not in a future life, which means that they were deceived by Old Testament prophets, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Why would God have sent the magi to Herod instead of directly to Bethlehem, thereby saving the lives of many young children?

 

[JustWondering2]

they didn't ask me!

 

[LittleNipper]

Consider the scource of the book who's teaching/history/science/etc you cling so tightly to and the fact those same people (authors of said book) thought illness was caused by either God or demons and the accepted belief of the time was that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe and a dome of stars revolved around the Earth. Are any of those beliefs known to be or thought to be true today? Who told us those facts?
Case Closed!

Well, I've never been a drug addict; however, I've been told that it is like having a monkey on your back... I do believe that diseases are the result of sin and so it is not out the question for me to understand how some diseases could be the result of demonic pressure.

Columbus was at least influenced by christianity and he didn't believe the world was flat. Blind superstition made out that the world was flat and not a through Bible study.

The Bible uses the terms circle and vaulted. Both imply roundness.

 

[Jose Fly]

Did they do this in the Bible belt or California perhaps?

The point of statistical sampling is to proportionately represent as many demographics as you can. IOW, the point is to try and get an accurate cross section of the population. Obviously sampling only in one state or one region doesn't get you there.

 

[LittleNipper]

Since rain is actually god's tears falling on us when he weeps over the fact the world is so full of creationists, I believe there actually could be a flood soon enough.

GOD would not weep over people who believe GOD's Universe was CREATED.

 

[LittleNipper]

Yes, perhaps. Alternatively, perhaps this is a comforting nostrum to console those who have no reason-based riposte.
Though these considerations always fall sort of evaluating any evidence that runs counter to their preconceived ideas.
Y-e-s, of course. It makes complete sense that the person you've offended loves you so much he'll beget a son then kill him to make amends.
On the contrary.

JESUS was GOD in a human shell. The SON of GOD --- the SPIRIT of GOD --- they are GOD.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Well, I've never been a drug addict; however, I've been told that it is like having a monkey on your back... I do believe that diseases are the result of sin and so it is not out the question for me to understand how some diseases could be the result of demonic pressure.

Columbus was at least influenced by christianity and he didn't believe the world was flat. Blind superstition made out that the world was flat and not a through Bible study.

The Bible uses the terms circle and vaulted. Both imply roundness.

GOD would not weep over people who believe GOD's Universe was CREATED.

JESUS was GOD in a human shell. The SON of GOD --- the SPIRIT of GOD --- they are GOD.

Nice.
But you have yet to provide evidence that the world is only 6,000-10,000 years old.

 

[LittleNipper]

Since you have made the claim, please give an example of an accepted scientific conclusion about biological evolution that is the result of ignoring overwhelming evidence.

The Flood (Part I) - The Evidence

http://www.freewebs.com/bibletruth/noahsflood.htm

http://www.biblemagazine.com/magazine/vol-9/issue-4/evidence.html

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1811

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/agescience2.htm

 

[tumbleweed41]

Since you have made the claim, please give an example of an accepted scientific conclusion about biological evolution that is the result of ignoring overwhelming evidence.

The Flood (Part I) - The Evidence

No, I asked for an accepted scientific conclusion about biological evolution that is the result of ignoring overwhelming evidence.

Instead, you provide a link that provides Biblical scripture related to a supposed worldwide flood, along with a theory unsupported by actual geological and hydrological evidence.

Now, lets try again to support your original claims.

Please give an example of an accepted scientific conclusion about biological evolution that is the result of ignoring overwhelming evidence.

 

[LittleNipper]

No, I asked for an accepted scientific conclusion about biological evolution that is the result of ignoring overwhelming evidence.

Instead, you provide a link that provides Biblical scripture related to a supposed worldwide flood, along with a theory unsupported by actual geological and hydrological evidence.

Now, lets try again to support your original claims.

Please give an example of an accepted scientific conclusion about biological evolution that is the result of ignoring overwhelming evidence.

You must be a very fast reader or just someone who ignores anything that runs against what you need to believe.

 

[tumbleweed41]

No, I asked for an accepted scientific conclusion about biological evolution that is the result of ignoring overwhelming evidence.

Instead, you provide a link that provides Biblical scripture related to a supposed worldwide flood, along with a theory unsupported by actual geological and hydrological evidence.

Now, lets try again to support your original claims.

Please give an example of an accepted scientific conclusion about biological evolution that is the result of ignoring overwhelming evidence.

You must be a very fast reader or just someone who ignores anything that runs against what you need to believe.

Not only am I a speed reader, I have the site you linked to bookmarked from previous discussions. You see, I do my homework.

Now, back to your claim.
Please give an example of an accepted scientific conclusion about biological evolution that is the result of ignoring overwhelming evidence.

 

[LittleNipper]

Not only am I a speed reader, I have the site you linked to bookmarked from previous discussions. You see, I do my homework.

Now, back to your claim.
Please give an example of an accepted scientific conclusion about biological evolution that is the result of ignoring overwhelming evidence.

Accepted by whom? By atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, uniformitarians? I cannot imagine that they are unbias towards anything that steps on their toes. But RATE Resaerch has been a smack in the head for many.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Accepted by whom? By atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, uniformitarians? I cannot imagine that they are unbias towards anything that steps on their toes. But RATE Resaerch has been a smack in the head for many.

RATE Research? You mean the 'Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth' committee that combs the scientific literature and designs laboratory "experiments" that will somehow verify what they have already concluded, namely that Genesis is "The Truth" and geochronology is "wrong".
These so called "Scientists" actually allow an "observer" to ensure that their "science" does not conflict with the official party line. That is, a Hebrew language scholar will participate to make sure the RATE Group stays on course.
This is reminiscent of Stalins grip on scientists in the old USSR. Dictating what they must conclude.
Any research that must conform to predisposed conclusions, and discards or ignores any findings that conflict with with these conclusions is the worst type of bad science.

 

[Sonic247]

Any research that must conform to predisposed conclusions, and discards or ignores any findings that conflict with with these conclusions is the worst type of bad science.

People studying evolution do the same thing.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Any research that must conform to predisposed conclusions, and discards or ignores any findings that conflict with with these conclusions is the worst type of bad science.

People studying evolution do the same thing.

Here you have made the same claim as Lil'Nip'

So I will ask you.

Please give an example of an accepted scientific conclusion about biological evolution that is the result of ignoring overwhelming evidence.

 

[johnhanks]

Any research that must conform to predisposed conclusions, and discards or ignores any findings that conflict with with these conclusions is the worst type of bad science.

People studying evolution do the same thing.

Interesting. Please provide an example of findings ignored or discarded by evolutionary biologists because they fail to conform to their predisposed conclusions.

 

[Sonic247]

Of course they will rationalize it in the same way creationist scientists do to match what they believe. But when their radio isatope dating ends up being younger then it should be they assume there is something wrong with the machine. Or if something is in a rock layer where it shouldn't exist yet they will ignore it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Of course they will rationalize it in the same way creationist scientists do to match what they believe. But when their radio isatope dating ends up being younger then it should be they assume there is something wrong with the machine. Or if something is in a rock layer where it shouldn't exist yet they will ignore it.

Do you have evidence of this occurring? Or are you just assuming so because that is what the Creation "Scientists" told you was common practice in geophysics?
Do you even acknowledge that radiometric testing is consistently verified through other means of dating? Dendrochronology? Fluorine absorption? Oxidizable carbon ratio? Thermoluminescence? Potassium-argon dating? Paleomagnetism? Tephrochronology? Stratigraphic?



Now, can you actually give an example of an accepted scientific conclusion about biological evolution that is the result of ignoring overwhelming evidence.