Creationists: Here's your chance

[Autodidact]

This word dishonest bothers me. It implies that we all have the same experiences in life and see things the same...and if not there is dishonesty.

No, it states, not implies, that someone lied. The people who did this bogus "experiment" lied. They are liars. They don't tell the truth. They're not honest. Get it?
We're all entitled to our own opinions; we're not all entitled to our own facts.

I'm so glad we are all so different from each other. I do not see other views and not seeing the intelligence behind the bible I see, as being dishonest or stupid.

Because it's not. Now, if someone said, "I don't accept Christianity because there are no zombies in Canada," you might see it differently. That's what your arguments are like.

Nor do I believe that those of you that cannot see it are damned in any way. The bible clearly speaks over and over about a resurrection of the dead and of the rightious and unrighteous, both in new and old testaments. So it's not about looking good before God.

You seem to be confusing science and religion. Deeply, deeply confusing. Now your argument sounds like, "I don't believe Christianity because electricity works."

When I say I do not understand I do not expect to be put down about it. I, unlike some of you, do not know everything.

Good; admitting ignorance is the first step. I don't know everything either, but I do know what I don't know!

I do not understand how the testing is done and I do not have nearly enough knowledge to challenge the individual research papers as I do in my field of expertise. In that way I am not unlike you. I need proof and I do not understand it enough. My flaw is that I am unable to stop hoping in life after death without evidence I understand.

No, your flaw is thinking this has anything to do with a specific scientific theory in a specific field. Does germ theory make you worry about your salvation? Atomic theory? Why does evolutionary theory?

You give me a psych paper I do not agree with and I can pull it apart and argue using other research as to why I do not agree. So when I say I do not understand I mean I do not understand. But some of you did give me some great info but still it's over my head. However I can handle God and evolution together. Can you discuss this a little? How and when did man become something special to God? That sounds interesting.
The one thing I can say is that my experience of life and my hope has not led me to believe I am a better person than those of you who are being down right nasty.

You've thrown a few nasty punches yourself, brother.

...Now.. just to put the spanner back in the works (it is fun, isn't it?).... How does one explain the use of such a small portion of the brain? Does this fit in with evolution? One might see the huge capacity of the brain as an argument for creation. It does not appear to fit in with evolution in that we are usually given only a little more than we need.

Actually, the urban myth that we only use a small portion of our brain is just that, a myth.

For starters, to you know what the Theory of Evolution actually says? I think that would be a good place to start, but that's just me.

 

[painted wolf]

This word dishonest bothers me. It implies that we all have the same experiences in life and see things the same...and if not there is dishonesty. I'm so glad we are all so different from each other. I do not see other views and not seeing the intelligence behind the bible I see, as being dishonest or stupid.

Oh I don't see those who believe the bible to be dishonest either... but those that did the Mt.St.Hellen's experiment were definitely dishonest.

The people doing the experiment chose to test Xenoliths.... a xenolith is a piece of older rock that gets picked up by lava as it flows up to the surface.... this older rock is not fully melted and becomes a noticeable chunk in the new lava-rock. Since it was a geologist doing this then they must have chosen the xenolith on purpose... The only reason to choose to test that specific bit of the lava flow is to give a faulty reading.

Either that or they were stupid... I don't think they are stupid, so the only logical conclusion is that they must be intentionally dishonest.

It's like using a carbon dating test on a recently dead organism... it will always give a faulty reading because the test picks up the extra C14 produced by the atomic bombs dropped in the 1950's-1980's. These bombs actually made C12 into C14! In fact you can figure out if someone was born before or after the 1950's by looking for the C14 spike in their teeth.

So when they were doing those C14 tests they were, by ignoring the fact that the atomic bombs had introduced extra C14 they were being dishonest.... again I don't think they were being stupid, so I can only assume that leaving this fact out of their calculations was intentional.

I don't believe everyone who uses these examples are being dishonest... I think they are honest but mislead by those who have lied. When you don't know the science behind the tests and how they can be manipulated to give faulty information, you can't tell you are being lied to.

Now learning the truth about why the tests were deliberately misleading and choosing to ignore that and stick with the lie because it supports what you want to believe... is a different form of dishonesty, but it is self-deception.

wa:do

 

[Jollybear]

ImmortalFlame

No it isn't, despite whatever way you try and twist it.

How? If someone says &#8220;that&#8217;s too technical and I don&#8217;t understand it, so I am not going to respond to it&#8221; but they really mean in their mind &#8220;I understand it, I am just cornered, but I don&#8217;t want other people to THINK I am cornered, so I will lie and say I don&#8217;t understand it&#8221; < they say that in their mind. THAT is DISHONEST. How do you figure otherwise?

And no, I'm not.

Ok, good, I&#8217;m glad you&#8217;re not bull crapping me (another word for dishonest).

It's good to admit that you don't know something.

Agree

It's bad to ignore the fact that you don't know something and continue to assert that you are right - despite admitting ignorance.

It&#8217;s not bad if you assert to BELIEVE your right based on good reasons.

I never once directed anything at you - or anyone else - directly. I simply said it was a common tactic. Why are you being so defensive about this?

I could say it&#8217;s a common tactic to say creationists are dishonest. Because it is a common tactic, I hear it often from agnostics and atheists. So, THAT what your saying is a common tactic. That is why I am defensive about it. Your mad about a common tactic, so am I.

Putting aside the fact that I have never made any assertion about your belief in Genesis, your logic is still completely fallacious. Believing that lying is bad does not suddenly exempt you from the capacity to lie.

Yes it does. Believing that lying is bad DOES exempt you from the capacity to lie, yes it does. Here is why: IF you TRULY believe that lying is bad and one should stay away from it, if you TRULY believe that with all your heart, then your actions will clearly follow what you believe. If your actions do not follow what you say you believe, then you do not TRULY believe that lying is bad, that belief is not IN YOUR HEART. So, yes, if the commandment to not lie is in your heart, then you are exempt from the capacity to lie. And mind you, the commandment to not lie, is in MY heart. I am not saying EVERY command of God is in my heart (being that I am an imperfect person in a fallen world, but I am a work in progress) but the lie one is certainly IN MY heart. And here is why it is, I consider lies to be cowering and cowering I consider disgusting to me, therefore I STAY away from it. Now does that mean that I don&#8217;t have the potential to lie? No, of course I have the potential to, I have the potential to do almost anything actually. But having the potential does not mean to lie is in your heart. It&#8217;s like we all have two natures in us, a good and a evil, the one you feed is the one that will live, and the one you starve is the one that will die. The one that lives is the one that is in your heart.

In fact, if you believe that what you are supporting is a good thing - in spite of any kind of factual basis whatsoever, and that what you are opposing is a bad thing - in spite of any kind of factual basis whatsoever, you are more inclined to lie about it.

No it does not make you inclined to lie about it. No it don&#8217;t. I am NOT inclined to lie about certain things because I believe in certain things, and the reason why I will not SCRUE facts to support my beliefs is because I HATE LIES, therefore if I HATE lies, I am then not INCLINED to lie. Also EVEN IF I was inclined to lie, being inclined to something is STILL not the same as actually DOING it. You can be TEMPTED to do something and yet still RESIST doing it. But in my case I am NOT even TEMPTED to lie about facts to support my beliefs because I have in my heart a HATRED for lies and cowardness.

Once again speaking in generalities, I have heard creationists accuse evolution of everything from justifying the holocaust to slavery. I have heard it blamed for the downfall of society and some people even believe that it will literally turn men into monsters. Now, imagining for a moment that this is what you believe, of course you'd be inclined to fight it by any means necessary - even dishonest means.

No, no, no. This is where your wrong. First off let me say I don&#8217;t believe that all people who believe in evolution use it to justify bad actions, such as you mentioned about the holocaust, to slavery and the downfall of society and turning people into monsters. ALTHOUGH SOME people CAN use it to justify bad actions, this is VERY possible. But anyway, I don&#8217;t believe that all evolutionists believe in using evolution to justify bad actions. I have high confidence that you don&#8217;t use it to justify bad actions. Anyway, even if I DID believe all atheists used it to justify bad actions, STILL I would not be inclined to fight it to the extent of using dishonest means to beat it. No I would not, and here is why, because to me, cowardness and lies ARE THAT MONSTER. So how can you beat the monster by becoming the monster yourself? You see?

 

[Jollybear]

So the whole "I'm a Christian so I wouldn't lie" argument just doesn't gel with me.

It doesn&#8217;t gel with me either. Even if someone says &#8220;the commandment do not lie, is in my heart, therefore I will choose not to lie&#8221; < even THAT does not gel, because they could be LYING ABOUT THAT. But those who ACTUALLY say this and are being honest about it, THAT does GEL, but no one can know for sure who is telling the truth, only the person who is telling it can know for sure if they are telling the truth or not. You don&#8217;t know if I am lying right now, only I know that. And here is what I know, I am HONEST. That is what I KNOW, you however can only choose to TRUST me or DISTRUST me. I can&#8217;t prove to you my statements. If there was a way for you to look inside my heart, you would have proof then, but there is no way to do that, is there?

What's more, the entire Intelligent Design movement is based on misinformation.

I don&#8217;t believe it is, although I am going to research and read more and more, and then more and more, and then some. I&#8217;m not done with this.

Once again, I never once made any of these accusations against you. You're flying off the handle for no reason.

Well sorry for flying off the handle, but it was not for no reason.

Firstly, no, asserting something "by faith" as being correct - in spite of having no real knowledge of the subject - is still wrong. In fact, that's called willful ignorance.

Yes, that is wrong, but I should have told you what I meant by faith. It&#8217;s faith based on reason and evidence. I believe that intelligent design is a GOOD scientific theory, whether you call it theory or not makes no difference to me.

Secondly, again you keep acting as if I leveled any such accusation as you specifically. You need to get this idea out of your head.

Alright, it&#8217;s out.

For God's sake, not knowing is not what bugs me - it's not knowing and yet still asserting that you are right.

I have explained this now four times. Why is it so hard for you to understand this very simple distinction?

Ok, well don&#8217;t you assert that cosmic and biological Darwinian evolution is right then, since you don&#8217;t &#8220;KNOW&#8221; this, you theorize this. If you don&#8217;t want us intelligent designers to assert we are right, you also can&#8217;t assert that your right, since we both have the same kind of evidence. Whether you like it or not, there is EVIDENCE of design.

This is an open forum where people can respond to other people as they see fit. When multiple people respond to my posts - even if they weren't intended for them - I take the time to respond to them. For example, this entire back and forth between you and me came from a post I made to Newhope101, and then you interjected.

You know what? Your right, you got me there, I will fall back on this one. I did interject.

So forgive me if I'm a little skeptical of your "time management" excuse, but you don't have to make any kind of excuses whatsoever. Your'e free to respond or not respond to anything on this forum. That's kind of the point of it, it's a forum.

Well, the time management part is STILL true for me. I have two jobs, and a wife I still need to spend time with, and I go to the gym on top of it, and because I have been on here, I have not had as much time reading as I would like. Also cooking my lunch and other meals. So, yes, the time management part is still true. I am not trying to reject answering your post, but my points did have a history with redOne77, so I am going to respond to his points, which are similar to yours anyway, just slightly different. If I responded to both it would just be kinda meaningless doing that since it would cover the same thing.

 

[Jollybear]

Hold in there redOney77, i am working on my post for you.

 

[David M]

Whether you like it or not, there is EVIDENCE of design.

Oh yeah? Where exactly is this evidence for design?

"Its complicated and I don't understand it" is not evidence.

Unless you want people to laugh you will need to provide a method of detecting design that can be demonstrated to work accurately and rigourously on objects known to be designed and objects known not to be designed.

 

[Jollybear]

Oh yeah? Where exactly is this evidence for design?

"Its complicated and I don't understand it" is not evidence.

Unless you want people to laugh you will need to provide a method of detecting design that can be demonstrated to work accurately and rigourously on objects known to be designed and objects known not to be designed.

Your a Christain and you don't believe there is evidence for design? isn't that a bit of a oxy moron?

 

[painted wolf]

Your a Christain and you don't believe there is evidence for design? isn't that a bit of a oxy moron?

Not really... the majority of my biology professors. (at least those who's religious affiliation I know of) are Christians.

None of them accept ID or creationism as science.

wa:do

 

[Walkntune]

What is the alternative to creationism? Would you say random processes? If energy is a deterministic force then it is a creative force as existence came into being from a deterministic process.
If you say random then I would like an example of random process and how it does away with creation?

 

[Autodidact]

Your a Christain and you don't believe there is evidence for design? isn't that a bit of a oxy moron?

Way to ad hom, Jolly. It's about the message, not the messenger.

 

[Autodidact]

What is the alternative to creationism? Would you say random processes? If energy is a deterministic force then it is a creative force as existence came into being from a deterministic process.
If you say random then I would like an example of random process and how it does away with creation?

The problem is the term "creationism" is vague. Here we mean "Young Earth Creationist," or YEC, which is a person who asserts that the earth was created by YHWH within the last 10,000 years, that YHWH magically zapped two of each kind of animal into being, that there was a global flood around 4000 years ago, that all the creatures on earth are the descendants of the animals that Noah took on a boat that survived the flood, etc. There are a million alternatives to that.

The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is not an alternative to creationism. It's just the currently accepted scientific theory for the origin of species on earth. And it's correct.

 

[painted wolf]

What is the alternative to creationism

I'd say just about any view of bible that isn't fundamentally literalistic...

Would you say random processes?

Not necessarily... natural selection isn't random for example... nor is theistic evolution... or any non-biblical religious view.

If energy is a deterministic force then it is a creative force as existence came into being from a deterministic process.

I was unaware that energy "decides" things... at least from a scientific standpoint... as an animist, my spiritual views are a bit different.

If you say random then I would like an example of random process and how it does away with creation?

Seeing as "creation" or a "creator" can't be scientifically demonstrated... this question doesn't seem to work IMHO.

wa:do

 

[Jollybear]

RedOne77

While there may be disagreement among biologists as to how exactly species change, or exactly what path a particular group went through, there is no disagreement that evolution is correct.

If they can&#8217;t agree on HOW species change, how then do they know the species change into other species? Also if they don&#8217;t know exactly what path the particular group went through, how then do they know it went through a particular path to change at all? If they can&#8217;t agree on these things, why do they agree that evolution is correct? I am hearing that evolution is a DOGMA here. I&#8217;m not getting it?

Part of the problem, especially in these types of forums, is that most people on either side don't know the evidence at a professional level. I've noticed over the years on multiple forums that while people may have degrees in science related areas, most people don't have much more official biology beyond a year long intro course in college, or so it seems. In addition, because of the lack of scientific understanding among the public, these types of public debate can't go into the nitty gritty evidence for the most part because the average person simply doesn't have the background to understand it.

Ok, do YOU know the evidence at a professional level? Do you understand it? If so, I want to hold on to talking to you. I got lots more questions.

What do you mean by "air tight solid"? I'd say that evolution is pretty air tight solid as a scientific theory.

What I mean is, if it REMAINS a theory, it&#8217;s not airtight solid, since it&#8217;s a theory and not a fact. A fact is airtight solid.

Is it perfect? No.

Ok, then in other words it&#8217;s not airtight solid then. Facts are perfect.

But neither is the theory of gravity, and I would say both are correct in the general depiction of what they are trying to explain.

I see what you&#8217;re saying, but I think gravity is slightly different then macro evolution and cosmic evolution. Gravity is in the PRESENT (although still not SEEN tangibly) and macro evolution is NOT demonstrated presently, while gravity IS. You see what I am getting at?

Actually... Two theories attempting to explain the same thing can both be 'correct', or at least not antithetical to one another.

Ok, yes pard me, I do see that and I agree to that. The design theory and the evolution theory can BOTH be correct, that is true. God could be designing VERY SLOWLY, so, yea, that could very well be true (I don&#8217;t believe it is, but yea, I see what you&#8217;re saying, that both theories can be true, yes).

Take the theory of (Newtonian) gravity, it fails as a theory when you get into very large distances, yet it is very accurate and 'correct' when operating at every day level up to about the solar system level. At distances greater than this it fails, but Einsteins theory of relativity (really a theory about gravity) explains it quite well. Yet, neither theory can explain what happens at the very tiny quantum level, that requires a whole other theory which doesn't yet exist. But really, this point is trivial, and I don't know of any other exceptions to your statement other than gravity, and ideally all three theories of gravity will become one. In fact, Einstein was able to merge his theory of relativity with Newton's theory of gravity, but enough sidetracking...

Ok, I think I get the point on this one.

In order to become a scientific theory, it must do more than come up with a random explanation of the facts.

Intelligent design theory does not RANDOMELY come up with a explanation of the facts. They explain it very carefully with lots of reasons behind what they argue for.

In order to be a theory, it must first be shown to be useful in making predictions.

Intelligent design makes predictions.

In the case of Tiktaalik, the scientists knew that amphibians were around 365 million years ago, but only fish 385 million years ago. So with the theory of evolution, they made a prediction that a fish like amphibian, or amphibian like fish, would be seen somewhere between the 365-385 million years old. And guess what, they found it, "Tiktaalik", and it was found in 375 million year old layer. After many predictions and tests of a model/hypothesis, if it is found to be accurate again and again, as is the case with evolution, it then becomes a full-fledged theory.

Predicting that a fish like amphibian is in a certain layer is not predicting evolution, it&#8217;s predicting that you will find a fish like amphibian in a certain layer. How does this predict evolution? Also is there any FAILED predictions of evolution?

 

[Jollybear]

Basically, what I'm trying to say, is that scientific theories have real data to back them up.

I don&#8217;t dispute they have data, but that data is interpreted. It&#8217;s the interpretation that I question, not the data.

And if you want to disagree with them on scientific grounds, you better be prepared to show that it scientifically is a poor theory.

I am in the process of trying.

But just remember, if you only disprove evolution, you don't show that creation is a better explanation, that will require its own positive evidence.

There is only one other alternative. Either nothing/chance/time did it, or God did it, or it was always here, or it made itself, or it&#8217;s not really here. There is no other views out there, this covers all angles. If nothing/chance/time is disproven, the only other best alternative is God did it.

You got it.

Ok, good, you admitted that they cannot say or know that the theory of evolution is the &#8220;TRUTH&#8221;.

But it goes with everything in science. Scientifically, the Earth is not proven to be round, nor is it a scientific truth.

Ok, you&#8217;re losing me now, HOW is the earth NOT proven to be round?

By definition, the supernatural is above the natural; it doesn't obay the laws of nature (if it exists).

It obeys it&#8217;s own laws of nature.

Science is about discovering the natural, I'm not sure if I've mentioned this or not, but another name for science is "methodological naturalism" because it attempts to explain the natural.

Well, in that case, I think science should be reformed. Because to rule out or not study or not make a means to DETECT the spirit realm, is CLOSED minded. You may say they have no way to detect it, how do you know they can&#8217;t FIND a way to detect it?

If the supernatural exists, then yes, science would never find the truth.

Why? They would never find it if they RULE the possibility out, but if they are OPEN to study or find it, then it&#8217;s possible they will find it. Right?

Lets look at what exactly science is. Science is simply a methodology, a human idea, that we use to learn about the natural world.

Learning about the natural world is good, I am not against it. What I am against is if science RULES OUT a spirit world. I am also against if they REFUSE to STUDY the spirit world even if they don&#8217;t RULE one out. I think they should not rule it out and I think they should attempt to study it.

Science can't "own" anything. God owns both, yes, but it is also known that God sustains the natural world, in other words the physical universe is under the domain of natural law, or "ordinary providence" in a theological sense, that is held together (made possible;sustained) by the power and will of God.

Agree

So we live in a place under ordinary providence (natural law) in which we can use science like a tool to discover what wondrous place God has left us. However, it is important to note that this doesn't mean that God can't do anything to the physical world, only that when God does intervene (and I'm not sure that is the right word, but for simplicity I'll stick with it) it is not part of the natural order, and is commonly referred to as 'divine intervention'.

Agree

Getting back to scripture, yes it is concerned with both the physical and spiritual side of life. Yet, it is vastly more concerned with the spiritual side of life.

Hmm, it depends on how you define spiritual. It&#8217;s mostly concerned with a RIGHT relationship with God and ourselves and others to put it more closer to what it&#8217;s really more about then anything. Now if you want to call that spiritual, fine. But if you mean spiritual as in the SPIRIT WORLD, ummm, no, it&#8217;s not more concerned about that then the natural world.

And in the case of Genesis 1 and 2, which is where most anti-evolution scripture comes from, the standard interpretation by both Jewish and Christian scholars agree that it makes absolutely no claims about the physical universe.

Wow, ok, I need to recover myself from hearing that one. HOW does genesis 1 and 2 not make ANY claims about the physical world? That&#8217;s the first I heard this one. I gauss &#8220;created the HEAVENS and the EARTH&#8221; is not referring to the physical earth and heavens I suppose, yes no?

And this interpretation comes from the traditional Judaic interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 as well as Biblical exegesis and hermeneutics (essentially what does the text itself indicate in which things like 'culture' are taken into consideration as well).

How does genesis 1 and 2 not make any claims about the physical universe? I really don&#8217;t understand how anyone can say that.

 

[Jollybear]

Interestingly enough, the purpose of science is neither. Science's purpose is essentially to better the quality of life through understanding the natural world.

Did it EVER dawn on scientists or authorities in science that perhaps to not rule out the spirit world and study it that they could &#8220;better the quality of life through understanding the&#8221; spirit world? Think of what you could do by understanding and manipulating things in the spirit world? (not to be confused with manipulating God either, that&#8217;s not what I am talking about).

It is not so much that science only seeks natural explanations the way it is thought of today. In large, science is really a way to test the testable. The supernatural simply isn't testable. In order for something to be testable, btw, it must first be falsifiable. The supernatural, as it by definition doesn't conform to natural law, cannot be falsifiable therefore it cannot be testable therefore science can't do anything with it. It is not that science is close minded, but that the supernatural is just way too open to be tested.

Yea, it is falsifiable if they find ways to detect it and then use them to see if it&#8217;s there or not. Also the way I keep hearing about evolution, it sounds to me that THAT theory is not falsifiable. If I am wrong, how is evolution falsifiable?

If you don't mind I'd like to bring up an anecdote. When scientists first discovered that the universe was expanding, therefore showing that the big bang happened, the Pope of the Catholic church immediately said that science has proven God/Genesis. Now, the Catholic church has catholic scientists of their own. One of these catholic scientists, who works for the church, wrote a letter to the Pope essentially saying that the big bang was a scientific theory, and shouldn't be used to prove God. He was basically saying that science simply cannot comment on the supernatural, and to leave science with the natural and God/Scripture with the supernatural where they belong.

I see what the pope was getting at, but yea God is not proven, but the theory of the big bang implies a God since it shows forth a first cause.

Also you said &#8220;God/scripture belong in the supernatural and science belongs in the natural. Again, above you said that God OWNS both the natural and spirit world. But here, it sounds like your saying that science owns the natural and God owns the spirit world. Again, no, God owns both, science owns NONE. So how does God BELONG ONLY to the spirit realm? For some reason I get the impression your putting God in a box. Yes, no?

Science doesn't say that the supernatural doesn't exist, only that science can't say anything about it, it is silent on the issue.

Yea but why be silent on the issue?

That is why you can have people from all different faiths and those without faith from every corner of the globe do science and get along just fine as scientists.

Ok, that&#8217;s good, but why remain silent on the issue?

Like I said, the chemicals that are rushed into the brain can cause hallucinations - it doesn't have to.

Can cause hallucinations? How do you know the chemicals CAN cause this?

Also you then said opposite to your former statement saying it doesn&#8217;t have to? So first you said it can, and then you say the chemicals may not cause hallucinations? Huh? Am I missing something?

In 10th grade one of my classmates tried to commit suicide, and he was literally dead for several minutes. The doctors were somehow able to revive him, he told us in class that he didn't see or experience anything.

How many minutes was he dead? Also there can be other factors why he did not experience anything, one main factor could be is his spirit did not YET leave his body.

Obviously if someone is an atheist they will say that every single time someone experiences something from death it is a hallucination or effects of intense euphoria.

Yea they will say that, but how do they know this? Or better yet, WHY do they say this?

Obviously if you are not an atheist, such experiences may be seen as the Divine, but not necessarily so. Based on my own experiences and understanding of science and theology, I think such events are natural based while others are not,

Give me an example of the difference between a natural based out of body experience near death and a REAL one near death?

and perhaps some are naturally based but God uses such opportunities to reach out and change people's lives.

How does God reach out and change their life through the NATURAL experience? Also when you say natural, do you mean hallucination by the way?

It is impossible to verify the near-death experiences, but I haven't seen anything scientifically convincing for out of body experiences.

How is it impossible? Also why is near death experiences convincing to you but not out of body experiences?

Again, people have claimed to have had them, yet they could not mention any items specifically placed (in the operating room) for them to identify if such a thing ever happened, and many times they are wrong about what the doctors physically did when they were under as they try to recall what they claimed to have saw.

Were they ASKED to LOOK FOR these items in the operating room before they went in? If no, then why would they focus on that in order to remember it? Also what are they wrong about with the doctors?

 

[Jollybear]

I personally have been under the knife many times in my life and never experienced an out of body experience. From what I know of dreams, and how they can be influenced by outside stimuli (like people talking), I think these people physically heard the surgeons talking about the procedure, twisted it up a little in the interface between the ear and brain, and made a freaky dream out of it. Either that, or they made it up for fame and/or money.

Hmm, there is too many of these near death experiences and out of body experiences to be either a dream or them thinking they are out when there awake hearing stuff, and dishonesty for money and fame. Some cases are actually SURE the person is OUT, they are NOT awake at all. What about them?

I mean they are so common even my uncle had one, he had his throat slashed open with a bear bottle from a women, went to the hospital and floated above his body and he looked down and saw himself bleeding and the doctors working on him. And then he felt being sucked back into his body. He said it was clear as day when he experienced it.

Also out of curiosity, how were you under the knife? Explain?

 

[Autodidact]

RedOne77

[quote[While there may be disagreement among biologists as to how exactly species change, or exactly what path a particular group went through, there is no disagreement that evolution is correct.

If they can’t agree on HOW species change, how then do they know the species change into other species? Also if they don’t know exactly what path the particular group went through, how then do they know it went through a particular path to change at all? If they can’t agree on these things, why do they agree that evolution is correct? I am hearing that evolution is a DOGMA here. I’m not getting it?


What I mean is, if it REMAINS a theory, it’s not airtight solid, since it’s a theory and not a fact. A fact is airtight solid. [/quote] It's as airtight as scientific knowledge gets. No scientific knowledge is ever "airtight," because it's all empirical, and therefore provisional. But as much as science can ever "know" anything, it knows that this theory is correct.

Ok, then in other words it’s not airtight solid then. Facts are perfect.

Facts in this sense are very rare.

I see what you’re saying, but I think gravity is slightly different then macro evolution and cosmic evolution. Gravity is in the PRESENT (although still not SEEN tangibly) and macro evolution is NOT demonstrated presently, while gravity IS. You see what I am getting at?

It would be helpful if you used scientific terminology. I don't know what you mean by "cosmic evolution" or what it has to do with the ToE. Evolution is going on right now, and is demonstrated right now. The Theory of Evolution is more strongly supported than the Theory of Gravity.

Ok, yes pard me, I do see that and I agree to that. The design theory and the evolution theory can BOTH be correct, that is true. God could be designing VERY SLOWLY, so, yea, that could very well be true (I don’t believe it is, but yea, I see what you’re saying, that both theories can be true, yes).

There is no design theory. Intelligent Design is not a theory.

Intelligent design theory does not RANDOMELY come up with a explanation of the facts. They explain it very carefully with lots of reasons behind what they argue for.

Whatever it is, it's not science.

Intelligent design makes predictions.

REally? Like what?

Predicting that a fish like amphibian is in a certain layer is not predicting evolution, it’s predicting that you will find a fish like amphibian in a certain layer. How does this predict evolution? Also is there any FAILED predictions of evolution?

It's not that it predicts evolution, it's that the Theory of Evolution predicted where to find this fossil--and it was right. Like finding a needle in a million haystacks, it found it. Isn't that amazing? That's what a powerful theory can do. NO, there are no failed predictions. If there were, the theory would have been falsified and discarded.

 

[Jollybear]

Painted_Wolf

Not really... the majority of my biology professors. (at least those who's religious affiliation I know of) are Christians.

None of them accept ID or creationism as science.

Ok, just telling me that your professors, the one&#8217;s who happen to be Christians don&#8217;t accept ID as science and then denying that this is a oxy moron does not tell me WHY it&#8217;s not a oxy moron.

Also if they don&#8217;t accept ID why do they believe in God then? Also how can they say they believe in certain sections of the bible that talk about design? Don&#8217;t they believe God designed this universe? To be a Christian you have to believe that, that part should be OBVIOUS.

wa:do

Just curious, I always see you write this, what does it mean?

 

[Autodidact]

I am in the process of trying.

Think, Jolly. For over 100 years, every Biologists worth his salt tried. They tried every way they could think of, and they failed. Only at that point did Biology finally accept ToE, because they could not disprove it. But feel free to try. If you succeed, there's a Nobel prize in it for you!

There is only one other alternative. Either nothing/chance/time did it, or God did it, or it was always here, or it made itself, or it’s not really here. There is no other views out there, this covers all angles. If nothing/chance/time is disproven, the only other best alternative is God did it.

Do you know what science is? None of this is science or has anything to do with science. Let's say God did it. O.K. how? That's where science comes in.

Ok, good, you admitted that they cannot say or know that the theory of evolution is the “TRUTH”.

Nothing in science is "THE TRUTH' in this sense. Do you therefore reject all scientific knowledge?

Ok, you’re losing me now, HOW is the earth NOT proven to be round?

There is good evidence that it's (almost) round, but it's not proven. It's possible that you're a brain in a jar, there is no earth, and all of us are fooling you. But the evidence strongly supports the theory that it's round, just as the evidence strongly supports the theory that new species emerge by descent with modification plus natural selection.

Well, in that case, I think science should be reformed. Because to rule out or not study or not make a means to DETECT the spirit realm, is CLOSED minded. You may say they have no way to detect it, how do you know they can’t FIND a way to detect it?

Science is doing just fine, thanks. The supernatural is defined as that which cannot be detected with the senses. It's outside the scope of science by definition. Or, to put it differently, science by definition studies the natural. The supernatural may exist, but is outside the scope of science.

But sure, mess around with the best contribution to human progress ever.

Why? They would never find it if they RULE the possibility out, but if they are OPEN to study or find it, then it’s possible they will find it. Right?

No, by definition. Think of it this way--they're open to the possibility it exists, it's just not what science is about. That's what religion is for.

Learning about the natural world is good, I am not against it. What I am against is if science RULES OUT a spirit world. I am also against if they REFUSE to STUDY the spirit world even if they don’t RULE one out. I think they should not rule it out and I think they should attempt to study it.

They don't rule it out, they just don't study it.

If ToE is correct, (and it is) and if your God created all living things, then He did so via evolution. ToE does not deny the existence of your God.

If there is one thing I wish creationists could grasp, it is this. Alas, they are unable to do so.

If I had $1 for every time I've told a creationist this, sometimes the same creationist over and over, I could quit my job.

 

[Walkntune]

I was unaware that energy "decides" things... at least from a scientific standpoint... as an animist, my spiritual views are a bit different.

I see it as a process of life overcoming resistance.As we become more resistant to disease we actually create new disease through the resistance as it mutates. We are not keeping up with new diseases but only causing them to mutate in spite of what big pharma would like the world to believe. We have more control in nature then other animals as we have more ability to become resistant or not to the energy force in nature through our will where animals are more distinctive to it.
This energy force seems to be getting faster and faster and humans are actually controlled by it even though we have the ability to manipulate it. The pace of life is getting ridiculously fast.
Where we used to engage in one conversation at a time transferring information we now engage in many conversations through Internet and jump from thought to thought.
Are humans in control or are they trying to keep up?