Creationists driving cars - Is this a contradiction?

**mattbrowne** · Mar 16th, 2008 6:46 AM

Well, I would say: yes.

Creationists follow a Dark Ages belief system which includes above all a blatant disrespect for scientific method. Most of them drive cars and the irony is that the car would never have been in the 19th century without 300 years of enlightenment that preceded this invention (the first Otto gasoline engine was built in Mannheim, Germany by Karl Benz in 1885).

Creationism is more dangerous than astrology. As long as horoscopes contain positive statements, the placebo effect makes the lives of people easier.

Enlightened Christians can believe in God and follow Jesus's teachings, while at the same time knowing the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old and evolution is no contradiction when properly interpreting the Bible or other sacred writings. The "seven days" in Genesis have a symbolic or metaphorical meaning. Ever heard of the "eleventh hour"? The eleventh hour is an expression referring to the last moments before a deadline or the imminence of a decisive or "final" moment. In a situation like this, nobody would check his or her wristwatch and expect to see it's eleven o'clock. Well, a few creationists might.

All sacred writings are full of allegories, symbols and metaphors. This holds true for all faiths. I know many enlightened Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists etc. who would agree with this. I also know many enlightened followers of non-religious belief systems who would also agree with this. There are many excellent non-religious belief systems and they are equally important. Following a particular belief system is a personal choice. We should all respect each other's differences in rituals and customs.

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light". This could mean "Let there be starlight", which represents a key milestone after the creation of our Universe, beginning with the Big Bang. To me it also means "let there be enlightenment".

Religious views of a person should be consistent with that person's life. Cars require enlightenment

Any thoughts on this?

Why do creationists not trust the age of the Earth? Evolution? A high mountain requires more time to build. A pebble requires a lot of water to keep flowing over it. The half-times of isoptopes can be clearly observed. Resistant bacteria adapt to deal with threats from antibiotics. We can even watch DNA make copies of itself and measure the rate of errors (mutations). GPS receivers can monitor plate tectonics. I have trouble understanding half-hearted enlightenment of creationists in support of the science behind cars, but being ignorant about the age of the Earth or the Universe.

Well, some creationists were brainwashed when they were kids. So they are actually victims and we need to develop strategies to unbrainwash their minds. College professors have a hard time with them as freshmans in science classes. The dangerous people are the "thought" leaders of creationism and I suspect that they also have political goals. I'm glad that European governments have begun dealing with the issue, see the resolution below. By the way, I would consider myself to be an enlightened Christian. I believe in God. I admire the teachings of Jesus. They are wonderful, smart and very long-sighted. I love science. I find it very sad that creationist leaders try to hijack religion and use it for their own purposes. Terrorists try to do the same and of course this is worse as people also get killed. All of this drives people away from religion. What we need is enlightened religious leaders with enough charisma and the willingness to cooperate with enlightened politicians (not all politicians fall into this category). We need strategies to contain creationism and "intelligent" design.

A note on Social Darwinism: I think homo sapiens became such a successful species because it also developed solidarity and social behavior. Natural selection favored groups of early homo sapiens (and its ancestors) because they were helping each other. They developed painting and language. Survival of the fittest in economic terms does not mean the company that is most ruthless will survive. Ruthlessness might lead to short-term success, but that's about it. What you need is fair competition and real stakeholder value. Treat everyone well. Your customers, your employees, your local communities. Long-term you will also have happy shareholders. Focus on short-term shareholder value only and you're doomed. Natural selection. Darwin was a smart man.

Our children should not only learn about science, but also philosophy, ethics, religion, purpose, identity and a lot more. They should not be indoctrinated. Science cannot answer every question there is. Science cannot prove or disprove God. Whether God exists is a matter of belief. A matter of faith. Science cannot answer the question why anything exists at all. We need both. But we don't need pseudoreligions such as creationism messing with science. Religion should stick with the realm outside science. Purpose. Meaning of life (beyond that of selfish genes). Values. Peace.

I'm trying to comprehend the Creationist view and the appeal of Dark Ages belief systems in general. There are some in other religions as well. Without understanding we cannot develop useful strategies to fight the Dark Ages belief systems. They appear harmless at first. I'm sure many non-suspecting Creationists are good and warm-hearted people. They are being misled by charismatic pseudoreligious leaders who seem to have political agendas as well. Not so harmless anymore. Kids get brainwashed by their strict parents. Creationism gets very harmful when it comes to hijacking the education system, in particular the curriculums of science classes. We cannot allow this. We have to fight this. This is what the European Union is trying to achieve (see resolution below). It's sad how far this has spread in the United States. In the mid-term the movement can become very dangerous. First it will lead to the burning of books and later to the burning of witches. Galileo was found guilty of heresy and put under house arrest. Giordano Bruno was killed. He was burned at the stake as a heretic. We think we live in the 21st century and all of this happened a long time ago. Can we be sure the Dark Ages will not return? Can we take democracy and freedom for granted? Or does it take an effort to defend it?

Undermining scientific method in a few areas can eventually spread to other areas as well. Let's try to contain it while we still can. I don't want to go back to the burning of witches. Europeans are quite worried about what's going on in the US. I don't want brainwashing in our schools. Here's a very recent resolution from the European Parliamentary Assembly:

1. The aim of this resolution is not to question or to fight a belief – the right to freedom of belief does not permit that. The aim is to warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science. It is necessary to separate belief from science. It is not a matter of antagonism. Science and belief must be able to coexist. It is not a matter of opposing belief and science, but it is necessary to prevent belief from opposing science.

2. For some people the Creation, as a matter of religious belief, gives a meaning to life. Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights, which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.

3. Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist ideas are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.

4. The prime target of present-day creationists, most of whom are of the Christian or Muslim faith, is education. Creationists are bent on ensuring that their ideas are included in the school science syllabuses. Creationism cannot, however, lay claim to being a scientific discipline.

5. Creationists question the scientific character of certain areas of knowledge and argue that the theory of evolution is only one interpretation among others. They accuse scientists of not providing enough evidence to establish the theory of evolution as scientifically valid. On the contrary, creationists defend their own statements as scientific. None of this stands up to objective analysis.

6. We are witnessing a growth of modes of thought which challenge established knowledge about nature, evolution, our origins and our place in the universe.

7. There is a real risk of serious confusion being introduced into our children's minds between what has to do with convictions, beliefs, ideals of all sorts and what has to do with science. An "all things are equal" attitude may seem appealing and tolerant, but is in fact dangerous.

8. Creationism has many contradictory aspects. The "intelligent design" idea, which is the latest, more refined version of creationism, does not deny a certain degree of evolution. However, intelligent design, presented in a more subtle way, seeks to portray its approach as scientific, and therein lies the danger.

9. The Assembly has constantly insisted that science is of fundamental importance. Science has made possible considerable improvements in living and working conditions and is a rather significant factor in economic, technological and social development. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with divine revelation but is built on facts.

10. Creationism claims to be based on scientific rigour. In reality the methods employed by creationists are of three types: purely dogmatic assertions; distorted use of scientific quotations, sometimes illustrated with magnificent photographs; and backing from more or less well-known scientists, most of whom are not specialists in these matters. By these means creationists seek to appeal to non-specialists and spread doubt and confusion in their minds.

11. Evolution is not simply a matter of the evolution of humans and of populations. Denying it could have serious consequences for the development of our societies. Advances in medical research, aiming at combating infectious diseases such as Aids, are impossible if every principle of evolution is denied. One cannot be fully aware of the risks involved in the significant decline in biodiversity and climate change if the mechanisms of evolution are not understood.

12. Our modern world is based on a long history, of which the development of science and technology forms an important part. However, the scientific approach is still not well understood and this is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human and civic rights.

13. The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism closely linked to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that some advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy.

14. All leading representatives of the main monotheistic religions have adopted a much more moderate attitude. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, as his predecessor Pope John-Paul II, today praises the role of science in the evolution of humanity and recognises that the theory of evolution is "more than a hypothesis".

15. The teaching of all phenomena concerning evolution as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies. For that reason it must occupy a central position in the curriculums, and especially in the science syllabuses, as long as, like any other theory, it is able to stand up to thorough scientific scrutiny. Evolution is present everywhere, from medical overprescription of antibiotics that encourages the emergence of resistant bacteria to agricultural overuse of pesticides that causes insect mutations on which pesticides no longer have any effect.

16. The Council of Europe has highlighted the importance of teaching about culture and religion. In the name of freedom of expression and individual belief, creationist ideas, as any other theological position, could possibly be presented as an addition to cultural and religious education, but they cannot claim scientific respectability.

17. Science provides irreplaceable training in intellectual rigour. It seeks not to explain "why things are" but to understand how they work.

18. Investigation of the creationists' growing influence shows that the arguments between creationism and evolution go well beyond intellectual debate. If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists. It is part of the role of the Council of Europe's parliamentarians to react before it is too late.

19. The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities to:

19.1. defend and promote scientific knowledge;

19.2. strengthen the teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge;

19.3. make science more comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the realities of the contemporary world;

19.4. firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general the presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion;

19.5. promote the teaching of evolution as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculums.

20. The Assembly welcomes the fact that 27 academies of science of Council of Europe member states signed, in June 2006, a declaration on the teaching of evolution and calls on academies of science that have not yet done so to sign the declaration.

--
Matt Browne
My webpage is at http://www.meet-matt-browne.com
"As a race, we survive on planet Earth purely by geological consent." Bill McGuire

**Cartesiantheater** · Mar 16th, 2008 9:08 AM

Rep X 10 million.

Although, the car thing might not be called for on the grounds that plenty of people who accept evolution, and even understand the science behind it, are completely ignorant of the mechanics of vehicles, maybe...

A better way to put it is this:

"Creationists taking new antibiotics- Is this a contradiction?"

Because, as is well known among those who want to know, the antibiotics we used in the past are useless now because the organism they used to kill have evolved exactly as modern evolutionary theory predicts right before our eyes.

***weederbro*** · Mar 16th, 2008 2:22 PM

Hello Matt,
Point 19.4 is spot on. Creationism OR evolution is indeed an over-simplification.
To be fair I think the bible MOSTLY presents as a history of a certain people and their relationship with the 'One God'. The amount of allegory that does occur is not the main feature, although there are a few parables.
The 'sticky' bit is that the 7 day thing actually IS presented as literal (evening and the morning of...)
These are days to step carefully arn't they, people are getting intolerant of complexity and are eager to choose sides about most anyfriknthing.

Cheers to the individuals who stand back from the crowds.

It is the age of Propaganda isn't it?
Many intelligent people will help usher in a new 'dark age' of reduced human rights, possibly under the auspices of a unified front religeon, teamed up with ever more fascist government.
Let us pray......

***UVsaturated*** · Mar 16th, 2008 2:37 PM

Behold; the white horse.

***Nu Kua*** · Mar 16th, 2008 2:58 PM

Excellent post, Matt!

Undermining scientific method in a few areas can eventually spread to other areas as well. Let's try to contain it while we still can. I don't want to go back to the burning of witches. Europeans are quite worried about what's going on in the US. I don't want brainwashing in our schools.

You are right to be concerned, because "the burning of witches" is exactly where this kind of thing can lead. Nothing is more dangerous to humanity than mixing religion in politics, and the hard core Creationists have a goal to do just that. I say this because of the fact that the same narrow-minded fire and brimstone church leaders are in cahoots with their political affiliates, and they work together to change the laws regarding what is taught in school as 'right' or 'wrong' regarding origins, as well as personal behavior and "morality" of the general public.
This is EXACTLY how the church during the inquisitions and witch burnings went about interjecting their beliefs onto the government and got the "witches" killed- they infiltrated and gained sway over the legal process. This is a historical fact.
This is why I have spent so much time and energy to warn people about what is truly happening with the religious extremists and our government process. It can only lead to more slavery, censorship, and eventual bloodshed at the end.

It often seems as if their belief that God created us all and "God don't make no mistakes" (as I saw on a T-shirt once- I like to imagine a God who knows grammar to an extent but oh well...) goes right out the window when they are encountered with people who do not accept their dogmatic religious prescriptions.
You are right to fight this and I support you 100%.

**Cartesiantheater** · Mar 16th, 2008 5:31 PM

Originally Posted by weederbro

Hello Matt,
Point 19.4 is spot on. Creationism OR evolution is indeed an over-simplification.
To be fair I think the bible MOSTLY presents as a history of a certain people and their relationship with the 'One God'. The amount of allegory that does occur is not the main feature, although there are a few parables.
The 'sticky' bit is that the 7 day thing actually IS presented as literal (evening and the morning of...)
These are days to step carefully arn't they, people are getting intolerant of complexity and are eager to choose sides about most anyfriknthing.

Cheers to the individuals who stand back from the crowds.

It is the age of Propaganda isn't it?
Many intelligent people will help usher in a new 'dark age' of reduced human rights, possibly under the auspices of a unified front religeon, teamed up with ever more fascist government.
Let us pray......

What do you think of what I said here in my last post?

Originally Posted by CT

the antibiotics we used in the past are useless now because the organism they used to kill have evolved exactly as modern evolutionary theory predicts right before our eyes.

***jeffweeder*** · Mar 16th, 2008 7:09 PM

What about creationists in an ark? That couldnt be contradictory, because they were the ones with the scientific knowledge to build such a thing and faith to jump on board.
Sound faith and scientific expertise saved the world .
Science is about observing how and why things work, so origins science really has nothing to do with it

***DontBeAfraid*** · Mar 16th, 2008 9:45 PM

Science is about observing how and why things work, so origins science really has nothing to do with it

Science is the study of the NATURAL world. Much of this study is through inference and indirect observation. Creatiots should not play semantic games with scientists.

***weederbro*** · Mar 16th, 2008 10:45 PM

Hello Ct,

What CAN I say? what you said about antibiotics is true.

I freely admit I don't know enough science to mix it with the very knowledgable science freaks on AO. RESPEK!

***jeffweeder*** · Mar 16th, 2008 10:58 PM

Much of this study is through inference and indirect observation.

yeah ,assumption is the word i think you are looking for.

Stilll nothing beats just sitting back to see how it all happens, and then to apply experiments to those observations, and discover things.
Keep an open mind and apply many methods of coming to those conclusions.
Maybe we shouldnt spend so much time of how it came to be there ,but to just observe how it goes about its business...both ways lead to the end of the rainbow, and it looks like a glorious initiator.

**Cartesiantheater** · Mar 17th, 2008 3:37 PM

"origins science" is not a phrase that scientits use. Evolution theory is biology. Big Bang theory etc is called cosmology- (cosmology absolutely is NOT a study of the origins of the universe. It is a study of the nature of space and time from a macroscopic perspective. It just so happens that the origin, or at least the very first moments, of the universe fit under the study of macroscopic space and time). Theories about the first life forms is called biochemistry. Biochemistry covers a wide range of scientific theory including the first life forms, but that is NOT what defines it.

Physics. Biology. Chemistry. These are not the same field of study!

A biologist is no more a physicist that you are Jeff.

Do a search on the words "origins science" and you will find ONLY creationist/intelligent design pages.

There is no such thing as a scientific field called "origins science," and if the term is every popularized in scientific circles it will be precisely because creationist influence, NOT because there actually IS a sub-seciton of science that specializes in "origins."

Do not lump these disparate disciplines into one group because it is convienient with your creationism arguments and your interpretation of the Bible.

Originally Posted by jeffweeder

Stilll nothing beats just sitting back to see how it all happens, and then to apply experiments to those observations, and discover things.

Funny, this is what evolutionary biologists do...

-first observations: Darwin on his travels
-modern observations: genetics, fossils, etc

-experiments: genetic experiments; predictions that human beings will have certain genetic properties if evolutionary theory is correct

-discoveries: finding the exact predicted genetic property by evolutionary biology when the technology became available.

Evolution is true science in every sense of the word. It is falsifiable (and particular versions HAVE been falsified hundreds of times- that is why modern evolutionary biology is different from older versions). It makes observations. It makes predictions based on theories derived from those observations. It then tests those predictions by examining the real world to find out if they are correct. It then modifies the theory in light of what the evidence reveals.

Originally Posted by jeffweeder

Maybe we shouldnt spend so much time of how it came to be there ,but to just observe how it goes about its business...both ways lead to the end of the rainbow, and it looks like a glorious initiator.

I do wish that creationists would do this. There is no Great commission in the Bible to figure out how God created the universe, etc.

HOWEVER

Finding out how God did things is what scientists are supposed to do. Why? Because they can actually fiind out how he did it since they do not assume they already know how he did it prior to examining creation.

===>

If a scientist examines evidence that suggests that God did X, the scientist reasons that "God did X."

On the other hand

If a creationist examines evidence that suggests that God did X, the creationist will only accept the evidence as plausible if it matches what the creationist already believes.

***DontBeAfraid*** · Mar 17th, 2008 11:36 PM

yeah ,assumption is the word i think you are looking for.

I hope you fall outta bed and break your nose.

***jeffweeder*** · Mar 18th, 2008 12:07 AM

Finding out how God did things is what scientists are supposed to do. Why? Because they can actually fiind out how he did it since they do not assume they already know how he did it prior to examining creation.

Thats what i thought i said----evolutionists dont need to assume, creationists dont need to either.
Lets just observe and see how it is all happening.

If a scientist examines evidence that suggests that God did X, the scientist reasons that "God did X."

No the scientist does not always do this, most try to avoid that, even though the facts are suggesting very heavinly that its full of complex ...um... creativity

On the other hand

If a creationist examines evidence that suggests that God did X, the creationist will only accept the evidence as plausible if it matches what the creationist already believes.

Hang on a minute, you are assuming that a definition of a scientist, is an evolutionist..Cheeky boy.
Its baggage that neither evolutionist or creationist should let hinder their work.

__________________

I hope you fall outta bed and break your nose.

Thats impossible............I sleep on the floor.
I love you to.

***DontBeAfraid*** · Mar 18th, 2008 1:14 AM

Thats what i thought i said----evolutionists dont need to assume, creationists dont need to either.
Lets just observe and see how it is all happening.

To pretend that the deductuve reasoning, inference, observation, study and education of real scientists and creatiots is even remotely similar is retarded. One is based on and built upon ACTUAL observations of nature and the universe and the other STARTS with conclusions found in a disgusting book.

No the scientist does not always do this, most try to avoid that, even though the facts are suggesting very heavinly that its full of complex ...um... creativity

If your god had ANY quantifiable attributes it would be a field for scientific study. Thus far it has shown NONE and therefore has no place in the explanations of natural phenomena.

Hang on a minute, you are assuming that a definition of a scientist, is an evolutionist..Cheeky boy.

Dont pretend for even one second that you know anything about what real science consists of.

***jeffweeder*** · Mar 18th, 2008 1:42 AM

One is based on and built upon ACTUAL observations of nature and the universe and the other STARTS with conclusions found in a disgusting book.

Yep, i told you Darwin sould never have wrote that book.

Dont pretend for even one second that you know anything about what real science consists of

I dont think im wrong in suggesting that we observe how it all works, but yeah im uneducated in these fields...i fear bad teaching, besides i simply see it as magical and imaginative and purpose driven

***DontBeAfraid*** · Mar 18th, 2008 2:34 AM

Yep, i told you Darwin sould never have wrote that book.

There is no such thing as a darwinist. Nearly the entirety of biology and medicine is based on and derived from a foundation consistent with evolution.

I dont think im wrong in suggesting that we observe how it all works

No, you are wrong to pretend you dont see evolution.

but yeah im uneducated in these fields...

You are willfully ignorant in these fields, thats far worse than simply being uneducated.

i fear bad teaching,

You fear all teaching that doesnt fit your backwards world view. This is the huge difference between scientists and creatiots. If the evidence proves that evolution is entirely inaccurate then no scientists would continue to accept it as fact. If evidence calls for a modification of the model then the model is modified.

With creatiots, all evidence that doesnt fit their misfit world view is "the work of the devil".

besides i simply see it as magical and imaginative and purpose driven

See what? The evolution of complex life?

***jeffweeder*** · Mar 18th, 2008 2:55 AM

There is no such thing as a darwinist. Nearly the entirety of biology and medicine is based on and derived from a foundation consistent with evolution.

How did we find out about evolution then? Where do you think it came from..and what motivated this particular mindset/approach?

You are willfully ignorant in these fields, thats far worse than simply being uneducated.

How?

You fear all teaching that doesnt fit your backwards world view. This is the huge difference between scientists and creatiots. If the evidence proves that evolution is entirely inaccurate then no scientists would continue to accept it as fact. If evidence calls for a modification of the model then the model is modified.

With creatiots, all evidence that doesnt fit their misfit world view is "the work of the devil".

Seriously , I want the truth, dont see the point in hangin on to some other idealogy, and end up sinkin in the sand when the truth is finally revealed.
You just spoke of a model yourself, but why is an origin theory paramount to just watching and learning? Isnt it true that by what is being observed---by scientific stuff, is beyond and staggering to our comprehension and destroys primitive theory about it..it seems to be ever chaging--what we thought we knew.

***DontBeAfraid*** · Mar 18th, 2008 5:09 AM

How did we find out about evolution then?

A guy named Charles Darwin hypothesized a natural mechanism by which the diversity of life might be explained after observing some differences in birds reproductively isolated from each other. Although he was probably not the first person to notice it. This does not mean that there is such a thing as a darwinist. No scientist holds "faithfully" to a school of thought simply because of respect for those who came before him/her. The scientist holds true only that which has not been undeniably proven false.

and what motivated this particular mindset/approach?

There is no darwinist mindset.

How?

The uneducated simply has yet to learn. The willfully ignorant choose to stay stupid.

Seriously , I want the truth, dont see the point in hangin on to some other idealogy, and end up sinkin in the sand when the truth is finally revealed.

Truth is DISCOVERED, not revealed. That is, if you really are about observing and learning.

You just spoke of a model yourself, but why is an origin theory paramount to just watching and learning?

Evolution is not a theory about origins and like CT ALREADY pointed out there really is no such thing as origin science. Just many varied isolated and overlapping fields of science.

Isnt it true that by what is being observed---by scientific stuff, is beyond and staggering to our comprehension and destroys primitive theory about it.

This sentence is too abstract or broken for me to understand. Rewrite it in comprehensible english and I will respond to it. Before you do though, make sure that you consider the difference between the common use of the word theory and the scientific use of the word theory.

it seems to be ever chaging--what we thought we knew.

This is the beauty of the scientist. Willingness to change the model in light of new evidence. It seems you might be of the impression that if the evolutionary model is found to be lacking in any way then there might be some credence to the creation story.... Just so you know, NO, creation does not become any more true no matter how any other theory matches up to observable reality.

**Cartesiantheater** · Mar 18th, 2008 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by jeffweeder

Thats what i thought i said----evolutionists dont need to assume, creationists dont need to either.
Lets just observe and see how it is all happening.

But that's exactly what evolutionary biologists to.

No the scientist does not always do this, most try to avoid that, even though the facts are suggesting very heavinly that its full of complex ...um... creativity

This is completely and utterly factually incorrect.

The evidence, like it or not, points strongly to an ancient earth and common descent.

Yes, the facts say that the universe is complex. The facts also say that that complexity probably arose from natural law. I do not think that creationists appreciate the power of the laws of nature, since they do not study them like professionals do.

Hang on a minute, you are assuming that a definition of a scientist, is an evolutionist..Cheeky boy.
Its baggage that neither evolutionist or creationist should let hinder their work.

Liar. Sorry, but you KNOW as well as anyone here that ANY Christian who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible WILL reject ANY AND ALL evidence that seems to contradict it. They will find any imaginative way to allow them to refute it, even if these are absurd and/or a misinterpretation of what the evidence or scientific theory says (for example, the age old "the 2nd law of thermodynamics" argument).

If you deny that creationists start out with the answer before they examine the evidence, there is no question that you are a bold faced liar.

And it is simply a fact of historical record that the theory of evolution arose from observation first, and it is also a simple historical fact that observations have forced evolutionists to modify their theory again and again (as per the scientific method).

If an evolutionary biologist, on the other hand, finds evidence that shatters evolutionary theory, he will become an instant celebrity and go down in history as one of the greatest scientists of all time (BECAUSE of the rigorous scrutiny that scientitific theories are put to)

It is the dream of every young scientists to show that the old theories were wrong. That is why Albert Einstein is the hero of so many young future scientists (myself included). His theories shattered three hundred years of scientific dogma.

Scientists YEARN for that- but yearn to do it if and only if their theory is incredily solid beyond all reproach.

***Smoke*** · Mar 18th, 2008 11:34 PM

This here is probably what god really thinks, click the link and press the PALY button :) http://www.sickanimation.com/cartoon...ttwomenonearth

***UVsaturated*** · Mar 18th, 2008 11:39 PM

Smoke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thats hilarious. Seriously, you slay me. Truly you shall be a child in the Kingdom of Heaven.

***Smoke*** · Mar 19th, 2008 2:12 AM

Originally Posted by UVsaturated

Smoke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thats hilarious. Seriously, you slay me. Truly you shall be a child in the Kingdom of Heaven.

ha ha yea I laughed pretty hard at it to EVERY ONE WATCH IT!

***Godsgifttomankind*** · Mar 19th, 2008 10:23 AM

Hello DBA and thank-you for deep thoughts,

Originally Posted by DontBeAfraid

If your god had ANY quantifiable attributes it would be a field for scientific study. Thus far it has shown NONE and therefore has no place in the explanations of natural phenomena.

Just as Biology is the study of the Biosphere, Theology is the study of Theos (aka God).

The only reason that theology is not considered a scientific study is because of the desire of many to move away from serious evidential understanding in favor of weak and inconclusive arguments.

Originally Posted by DontBeAfraid

Truth is DISCOVERED, not revealed. That is, if you really are about observing and learning.

It would seem that we are splitting hairs here, in order to discover something it must first be hidden and when it is found or discovered in fact it's place of hiding is revealed.

***DontBeAfraid*** · Mar 19th, 2008 12:55 PM

Just as Biology is the study of the Biosphere, Theology is the study of Theos (aka God).

The only reason that theology is not considered a scientific study is because of the desire of many to move away from serious evidential understanding in favor of weak and inconclusive arguments.

NO, the reason its not considered science is because it is not testable, falsifiable, explains NOTHING of the natural world and makes no RELIABLE predictions.

It would seem that we are splitting hairs here, in order to discover something it must first be hidden and when it is found or discovered in fact it's place of hiding is revealed.

Incorrect again ; example: the constants of gravity were discovered yet were NEVER hidden.

***Godsgifttomankind*** · Mar 19th, 2008 3:45 PM

Thank-you DBA for your quibble,

Originally Posted by DontBeAfraid

NO, the reason its not considered science is because it is not testable, falsifiable, explains NOTHING of the natural world and makes no RELIABLE predictions.

It would seem that it is up to us then to get it back on line, for it is clear that theology has become nothing more than mythology and vain imaginings.

Let us test it, falsify that which is false, relate it to the natural world and show the clarity of reliable predictions!

It is time that both creationists and evolutionists went for a ride in that which God has created!

Originally Posted by DontBeAfraid

Incorrect again ; example: the constants of gravity were discovered yet were NEVER hidden.

Let us look at another example scientists have examined telomeric DNA which they have isolated through a specific method and concluded that the telomeres are terminal and yet if I state that the telomeres are in fact formed in a loop but our process of examination keeps this information hidden from us, then when our method improves the truth is then revealed and we chalk it up as a new discovery.