Ben Stein "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

[arloiginla]

Originally Posted by photon

Gravity isn't a law. There's the theory of gravity, which is less understood than evolution frankly. Your comprehension of laws and theories is flawed.

Nothing in science is known without a shadow of a doubt.

As I've said before, if you're getting these basic things wrong, isn't it reasonable to think that you might be wrong about the bigger things?

And there's been no evidence for creationism or ID presented in this thread, only vague hand-waving that evolution violates some law. No results of experiments, no confirmed predictions, nothing of the sort.

The Bible itself says that Jesus is the only way to God.

That it does. However, some (a lot) of Christians think the best/only way to change people's minds and lives about a huge issue is to hit them over the head with it and give them the "believe or else" type of spiel. I feel for anyone who has had to be a victim of this type of "witnessing." I know I wouldn't change my religion just because someone on the street was guilt-tripping me if I didn't. I won't continue to go off-topic here, but don't lump us all together and assume that all creationists are half-crazed religious nuts blind to the real world and its facts.

Not really, both are concepts that have no supporting evidence.

What law? You're still misusing the term.

IT HAS! That's the point. The only people who adhere to it are those who have already predetermined the Bible is inerrant and therefore the tens upon tens of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years in dozens of disciplines ranging from physics to chemistry to biology to cosmology to archeology to genetics to whatever else have all come to the same conclusion through different paths must all be wrong in exactly the same way, or they're in a grand conspiracy.

The number of real scientists in fields of research relevant to evolution who actually don't believe it are almost nonexistent.

I am curious, what do you consider "real" science? Even though pieces of evidence such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics and say for example, the Hydroplate theory don't satisfy you, does that mean that don't really count as evidence?

It's NOT! It's illegal (at least in the US). Watch this series to learn about it:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

They do in the US. Watch that series and see how the religious right has tremendous influence.

The very definition of dogma. You will not be swayed, so I can only reason that your conclusion is based on faith and not evidence. You base your stance on something other than science, and just try to use science to support (rationalize?) your already decided upon position. Weak.

If you can't give a good reason for what you believe then you really should question why you believe it. If you can't, well, that's the kind of thing that got us into the dark ages in the first place.

You are right debating skills or being an expert in a field isn't required, but being able to approach something with intellectual honesty is.

I am fully willing to change my mind on evolution, I CAN be swayed, easily. I know exactly what kinds of things would disprove it. What about you? What detailed evidence would be sufficient to convince you that evolution is true?

I'd like the information gap that involves the beginning of time to be filled. How did the first living organism develop from something abiotic? How did the "something abiotic" come into existence? Or was it always there? Or for the big bang theorists: what prompted the big bang to take place? How did order result from chaos?

This is an open discussion and participation isn't mandatory, so of course no one is forcing ideas down anyone's throat, and no one I know here would wish ill on anyone.

Would you agree that not all beliefs are equally valid? How does one judge which are more valid than others?

I would agree 100% with that last statement, all beliefs ARE equally valid. Some beliefs might be more informed and education-based than others but at the end of the day no one's is better than someone else's.

P.S.-all this crap about comparing leaders who believed in each side and how many people they killed is just stupid - its becoming more of a pissing match than anything which is unfortunate.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Hitler was born a Christian, but later rejected Christianity. In Mein Kampf, he mentioned that he was to God's work, but after he took power, he outright rejected religon. In fact, he stated in a speech before that "Christianity was an invention from sick minds".

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mis...ca_hitler.html

Here are some specific Hitler quotes:

And I'm sure we could dig up plenty of other crap Hitler said about believing in god and whatnot. All his dimwitted "admirers" tinge their ######ed white power nonsense with Christianity today.

How many Germans who carried out the actual war and murdering considered themselves Christians or at the very least believed in God? I'd say a conservative estimate would be over 90%

Say I agree he was an atheist, what does that mean? Does it mean his disbelief in God made him do those things?

[photon]

He still believed in God though, or at least believed that saying he did served his purposes.

God the Almighty has made our nation. By defending its existence we are defending His work....
Only He can relieve me of this duty Who called me to it. It was in the hand of Providence to snuff me out by the bomb that exploded only one and a half meters from me on July 20, and thus to terminate my life's work. That the Almighty protected me on that day I consider a renewed affirmation of the task entrusted to me....
Therefore, it is all the more necessary on this twelfth anniversary of the rise to power to strengthen the heart more than ever before and to steel ourselves in the holy determination to wield the sword, no-matter where and under what circumstances, until final victory crowns our efforts....
In the years to come I shall continue on this road, uncompromisingly safeguarding my people's interests, oblivious to all misery and danger, and filled with the holy conviction that God the Almighty will not abandon him who, during all his life, had no desire but to save his people from a fate it had never deserved, neither by virtue of its number nor by way of its importance....
In vowing ourselves to one another, we are entitled to stand before the Almighty and ask Him for His grace and His blessing. No people can do more than that everybody who can fight, fights, and that everybody who can work, works, and that they all sacrifice in common, filled with but one thought: to safeguard freedom and national honor and thus the future of life.
-Adolf Hitler, in a radio address, 30 Jan. 1945

Bolding mine. Not saying that says anything about religion or atheism.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

And I'm sure we could dig up plenty of other crap Hitler said about believing in god and whatnot. All his dimwitted "admirers" tinge their ######ed white power nonsense with Christianity today.

Is this true?

From what I know about modern Nazi movements, which admittedly isn't terribly much, they tend to be atheist.

If you go to the American Nazi Party website, there is no mention of God anywhere in their ideology.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Is this true?

From what I know about modern Nazi movements, which admittedly isn't terribly much, they tend to be atheist.

I think a lot of the white supremacist movements in the States believe in God.

Not sure though.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by arloiginla

I am curious, what do you consider "real" science? Even though pieces of evidence such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics and say for example, the Hydroplate theory don't satisfy you, does that mean that don't really count as evidence?

The problem is that that bit of "science" that you pasted from Christian Answers (as Photon claims, I haven't verified it) is patently false and anybody with basic education in science will understand that. Utilizing such an explaination demonstrates that those using it don't understand the concept enough to properly use it...or are selectively using it to drive an agenda or merely suffering from cognitive dissonance to make a deeper belief they hold easier to stomach in the light of genuine contrary evidence. You can't just throw a word or basic concept of "science" out there and then claim it's science. That sort of logic is akin to the famous Python sketch of determining if someone is a witch.

"Witches burn right? What burns? Wood! Does wood float? Yes! So should witches float? Yes!"

"Real" science is that which statistically conforms to or can be explained by the vast body of independently testable, verified, repeated, and reviewed theories and observations about the universe that we live in. The creationist argument is faulty even at first glance. The 2nd law of thermodynamics shows that the entropy in a closed system will increase, however biological life is not a closed system. Solar input input into a dynamic system can increase the original energy needed to generate that system. A mature plant has more energy than the seed that it sprouted from. The next generation might have even more energy and more order. Furthermore, the phenomenon of order from disorder (decrease in entropy) is not restricted to living systems. Look at snowflakes, weather, crystals, stalactites, and lightning, etc. In any complex system with lots of energy dynamically flowing through it, you are almost certain to find a decrease in entropy somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it found throughout nature?

The creationist argument that evolution contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics probably destroys their credibility and one of the best arguments that they could have, that order is intrinsic to the universe and that an intelligent force might be behind it.

I'd like the information gap that involves the beginning of time to be filled. How did the first living organism develop from something abiotic? How did the "something abiotic" come into existence? Or was it always there? Or for the big bang theorists: what prompted the big bang to take place? How did order result from chaos?

I would agree 100% with that last statement, all beliefs ARE equally valid. Some beliefs might be more informed and education-based than others but at the end of the day no one's is better than someone else's.

Many plausible and even testable theories about that "gap" have long been established by science, in biochemistry, astrophysics, etc. It has been shown that the basic building blocks of life and potential abiogenesis can be created in a primordial soup in a laboratory environment. The big bang is extremely well supported by countless independent observations that all line up such as hubble's law, background radiation, galactic distribution, radiometric dating, etc. etc. Creationism provides no testable claims and nothing that can be "taught" as science. Science says we can hope to find those answers. Most religions say that we can not. They are already stated and you simply have to believe it or bend reality to fit that belief.

And no, not all beliefs are equally valid. In a liberal society, all beliefs should probably have a right to be expressed, but they are not all equally valid at all!

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by photon

He still believed in God though, or at least believed that saying he did served his purposes.
.

Hitler also used ancient Roman and Nordic symbolism. Basically, anything he needed to do to get the people to follow him, he would do.

I'm not saying that he was an atheist, as it is known that he was actually dabbling in the occult. He certainly wasn't a Christian though, and he certainly didn't use religion to fuel his actions either.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Hitler also used ancient Roman and Nordic symbolism. Basically, anything he needed to do to get the people to follow him, he would do.

I'm not saying that he was an atheist, as it is known that he was actually dabbling in the occult. He certainly wasn't a Christian though, and he certainly didn't use religion to fuel his actions either.

Hitler was a realist who understood the kind of power and persuasion that was needed to move a tide of humanity toward his goals. He believed himself an architect, building his own vision of the world. He was a megalomaniac who understood how to motivate and order people, how to act on their base instincts and desires to achieve his vision. That included the abuse of religion and religious symbology to create the image of the 3rd Reich that he desired. An appeal to higher power was common in political addresses in that era, it indicates no real belief on the part of the speaker...just like politicians today.

What many scholars instead argue, was that the lack of religious belief among the Nazi high-command is what led to the inhumanity of the Nazi machine, which nolonger associated human beings and the value of human life with any sanctity. Therefore the Endlösung der Judenfrage was merely a mechanical process expedited by base instincts of prejudice and genetic protectionism perpetrated through the use of scientific explanations (genetic inferiority), political anger, greed, and hatred.

I often look at the tide of history and just how endemic tribalism and ethnic warfare is in human culture and wonder if maybe the other human or proto-human hominids were wiped out by the same processes. A desire for ethnic purity and ethnic cleansing seems to be evolutionarily coded in human instinct.

[photon]

Originally Posted by arloiginla

That it does. However, some (a lot) of Christians think the best/only way to change people's minds and lives about a huge issue is to hit them over the head with it and give them the "believe or else" type of spiel. I feel for anyone who has had to be a victim of this type of "witnessing." I know I wouldn't change my religion just because someone on the street was guilt-tripping me if I didn't. I won't continue to go off-topic here, but don't lump us all together and assume that all creationists are half-crazed religious nuts blind to the real world and its facts.

I'm not lumping anyone together, the degree to which a Christian will act and the strength of their conviction may be questioned, but at its foundation it's still exclusionary.

The original comment was letting people believe something different, I only pointed out the conflict between that and the foundation of Christianity.

As an aside, wouldn't it be fair to say that those Christians who don't give the "believe it or else" message lack the courage of their convictions? If I knew a drink was poison and that you'd die if you drank it, but you believed it was fine, what lengths should I go to to intervene? I'd probably go so far as to physically restrain you or knock you out so you don't do it. How much further should one go if it's not just a life, but the eternal state of one's soul? One of the things I've been told many times with respect to "respecting others' beliefs".

I am curious, what do you consider "real" science? Even though pieces of evidence such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics and say for example, the Hydroplate theory don't satisfy you, does that mean that don't really count as evidence?

Real science fits observed reality. Real science makes predictions about future observations. Real science is falsifiable (it can be disproved).

The 2nd law of thermodynamics isn't "evidence", it's a law. It describes how heat behaves, nothing more. Nothing you've provided shows HOW evolution violates the 2nd law beyond saying "it does, therefore it does". If it did, you could do tests to show it.

You would accept that evolution at some level is real correct? So why would small evolution that's acceptable to you be ok within the 2nd law, but larger evolution wouldn't?

I'd like the information gap that involves the beginning of time to be filled.

So would we all. That's why science is a pursuit of ever improving knowledge, rather than a dogmatic statement about reality that cannot be changed. We go from not even knowing there's a question to be asked, to asking the question, to finding candidates for answers, to refining those answers forever.

How did the first living organism develop from something abiotic? How did the "something abiotic" come into existence? Or was it always there?

As I said before, this has nothing at all to do with evolution. This is a question about abiogenesis. As for the answer, troutman already posted some information on it. Of course it wasn't always there, in our universe cause precedes effect so everything started at some point. As to the exact mechanism, we don't know yet.

Molecules don't leave fossils, so it's difficult to say if we'll ever truely know how life originated. If you wish to invoke God at this point, that's fine, though that's employing the God of the gaps again and as I said to me that really dimishes God, plus what happens if at a later date it WAS shown to originate naturally?

Or for the big bang theorists: what prompted the big bang to take place? How did order result from chaos?

Two different questions. First, again there's ideas as to what was "before" the big bang (if that even means anything, how can you have "before" when time didn't exist??), but similar to abiogenesis it's nowhere near certain. Second question, order from chaos results because of the nature of reality. Forces act in a specific way, particles interact in specific ways, all these things create order from chaos every day without any influence from us.

I would agree 100% with that last statement, all beliefs ARE equally valid. Some beliefs might be more informed and education-based than others but at the end of the day no one's is better than someone else's.

I asked if you agreed that not all beliefs are equally valid.

I strongly disagree, how can someone's belief be valid if it is based on a flawed premise or based on faulty information? How can someone's belief be valid if it's the result of insanity, or intentional manipulation?

I believe I have an invisible dragon in my garage. Do you believe it too? Why not, if all beliefs are equally valid?

Unless we're missing each other with respect to the definition of the word belief here.

[photon]

Oh I missed the hydroplate theory part.

First, the rocks that make up the earth's crust do not float, even small ones.

Second, even in the crust the temperature of the earth is far above the boiling point of water. So the water would have been superheated, spewing out it would have poached Noah and the ark of animals alive.

Or, if that water was shot up into the upper atmosphere or space, the temperature increase of the water from falling from that high would have also boiled Noah.

There no evidence that there was a global flood.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by photon

Oh I missed the hydroplate theory part.

First, the rocks that make up the earth's crust do not float, even small ones.

Second, even in the crust the temperature of the earth is far above the boiling point of water. So the water would have been superheated, spewing out it would have poached Noah and the ark of animals alive.

Or, if that water was shot up into the upper atmosphere or space, the temperature increase of the water from falling from that high would have also boiled Noah.

There no evidence that there was a global flood.

And even outside of the typical areas of "hard" science, when you look at archeology, cultural anthropology, history, etc. there is valid evidence of flood stories and myths in many cultures that often predate the version told in the Torah and OT that share many strikingly similar features but vary vastly in religious consequence.

[photon]

Yup. Amazing that cultures centred around rivers would have floods in their myths and legends!

More hydroplate fun.. The layer of rock enclosing the layer of water would have to be perfectly sealed across the entire planet. No earthquakes before the flood then, and no asteroid strikes. Good thing the flood happened when it did since we'd have caused it later ourselves by drilling into the crust looking for oil or water or just wondering what's down there.

For a crust riding on a layer of water, there can't be any mountains either, since a mountain would weigh down that part of the crust and cause it to bend and break, releasing the flood early. So no mountians (despite the flood account specifically mentioning mountains).

How do you keep the core of the earth from crashing into the crust riding on the water? If they crashed it would release the flood early. The moon causes huge tides, it would cause turburlance in that layer of water too.

Plus there would be evidence of the chamber that used to house the water, even if it's just a horizontal fault line with some left over water in it, but there's no evidence.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Is this true?

From what I know about modern Nazi movements, which admittedly isn't terribly much, they tend to be atheist.

If you go to the American Nazi Party website, there is no mention of God anywhere in their ideology.

I don't know terribly much about it either, but I've seen a documentary or two and the phrases "Christian nation" and "Christian values" were pretty common. "Racial Holy War" and burning crosses and all the rest. Most of these morons come from the Bible Belt to boot.

But that's all for another discussion and doesn't mean much.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I'm not saying that he was an atheist, as it is known that he was actually dabbling in the occult. He certainly wasn't a Christian though, and he certainly didn't use religion to fuel his actions either.

I'd say he used religion to fuel his actions. His hatred for and propaganda railing against a religious group played a role in the holocaust.

Anyway, again -- let's say Hitler was an atheist. Was it the disbelief that led to all the terrible stuff he was responsible for?

The implication, far as I see it, behind the old "Hitler was an atheist" argument is that a lack of belief is what allowed him to commit such crimes. Is that the idea?

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by photon

He still believed in God though, or at least believed that saying he did served his purposes.




Bolding mine. Not saying that says anything about religion or atheism.

wow. take the part out about the bomb and that speech looks like something George W Bush would say, he's all about stating that he's carrying out God's will in his addresses. zealots come in all shapes and flavors

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'd say he used religion to fuel his actions. His hatred for and propaganda railing against a religious group played a role in the holocaust.

Hitler's hatred for the Jews was more about ethnicity than religion though, and he did try to use evolution and natural selection to his advantage (just as he did religion). Ironically, anyone who knows anything about evolution knows that genetic diversity is a positive thing to have in a population. He should have loved having Jews in Germany.

If you want an example of a world leader using atheism to justify atrocities, look at Enver Hoxha (former dictator of Albania). In 1967, he declared Albania an "Atheist State" and between 1967 and 1985, he executed more than 25,000 people for practicing religion (including public executions of priests), and he imprisoned thousands of others. This only includes those on record and not those who just "disappeared".

Don't take that as me saying "atheism is evil", but it is an "ism", and like most "isms", when people believe in them strongly enough, they can be fuel for hatred just like religion. We have roughly 8000 years of religiously inspired history to draw from when finding negative examples of religion's influence, but only a short period to draw from when looking for examples of atheist societies. It's not much of a sample size at all, but from what there has been so far, I can't say that I think non-religous societies will be more tame. In fact, a whole generation of Albanians grew up without religion, and the early returns don't look good.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Don't take that as me saying "atheism is evil", but it is an "ism", and like most "isms", when people believe in them strongly enough, they can be fuel for hatred just like religion. We have roughly 8000 years of religiously inspired history to draw from when finding negative examples of religion's influence, but only a short period to draw from when looking for examples of atheist societies. It's not much of a sample size at all, but from what there has been so far, I can't say that I think non-religous societies will be more tame. In fact, a whole generation of Albanians grew up without religion, and the early returns don't look good.

No I don't take "atheism is evil" from what you say at all.

It's jut that I don't get why the "Hitler/Mao/Stalin were atheists" thing is always trotted out. Let's say it is true for a second. Well, so what?

The suggestion seems to be that "these evil guys didn't believe in god, so obviously not believing in god leads to terrible things.".

Is that the point?

If it is the point then it's pretty easy to find examples of other tyrants and atrocities by people who did/do believe in God and say "these evil guys did believe in God, so obviously believing in God leads to terrible things". It's the same principle.

I'm really not trying to put words in your mouth. That's just the way it looks to me. If there is a different reason to bring up these lunatics as examples of atheists gone wrong then I'd love to hear it.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

No I don't take "atheism is evil" from what you say at all.

It's jut that I don't get why the "Hitler/Mao/Stalin were atheists" thing is always trotted out. Let's say it is true for a second. Well, so what?

The suggestion seems to be that "these evil guys didn't believe in god, so obviously not believing in god leads to terrible things.".

Is that the point?

If it is the point then it's pretty easy to find examples of other tyrants and atrocities by people who did/do believe in God and say "these evil guys did believe in God, so obviously believing in God leads to terrible things". It's the same principle.

I'm really not trying to put words in your mouth. That's just the way it looks to me. If there is a different reason to bring up these lunatics as examples of atheists gone wrong then I'd love to hear it.

The only point I was trying to make is that religion isn't responsible for all the evil either. I often hear atheists say that religion is the root of everything bad. Personally, I don't see it as any worse than an other type of ideology. If not for religion, humans will find other reasons to conquer others. Blaming religion or atheism is pointless when humans are the common denominator of both.

[arloiginla]

Originally Posted by photon

I'm not lumping anyone together, the degree to which a Christian will act and the strength of their conviction may be questioned, but at its foundation it's still exclusionary.

The original comment was letting people believe something different, I only pointed out the conflict between that and the foundation of Christianity.

As an aside, wouldn't it be fair to say that those Christians who don't give the "believe it or else" message lack the courage of their convictions? If I knew a drink was poison and that you'd die if you drank it, but you believed it was fine, what lengths should I go to to intervene? I'd probably go so far as to physically restrain you or knock you out so you don't do it. How much further should one go if it's not just a life, but the eternal state of one's soul? One of the things I've been told many times with respect to "respecting others' beliefs".

Not at all. I believe in the saying "preach always, only when necessary use words." i try to let my life be the example and the witness to others, following the basic rules of loving Lord with all your heart, and loving your neighbour as yourself (Matthew 22:37-39). I am very firm in what I believe but I will NOT be the guy standing at the corner of the street telling everybody the end of the world is near and repent or you go to hell (even if I believe it to be true). I care very much about somoene else's eternal destiny but I also believe God gave everyone a free will and if being around someone like myself isn't enough to make you want to be different, to want what I have, no words i say are really going to soften your heart in the long run (most of the time).

Real science fits observed reality. Real science makes predictions about future observations. Real science is falsifiable (it can be disproved).

The 2nd law of thermodynamics isn't "evidence", it's a law. It describes how heat behaves, nothing more. Nothing you've provided shows HOW evolution violates the 2nd law beyond saying "it does, therefore it does". If it did, you could do tests to show it.

You would accept that evolution at some level is real correct? So why would small evolution that's acceptable to you be ok within the 2nd law, but larger evolution wouldn't?

Because simple evolution is apparent around us, it can't even be disputed since it is happening every day. However since really there are no records that far back and no one can say for sure what things were like, say 10,000 years ago or by evolutionist estimates, millions and millions of years ago its pretty tough to believe for me, without some kind of blind faith, something I can't see.

So would we all. That's why science is a pursuit of ever improving knowledge, rather than a dogmatic statement about reality that cannot be changed. We go from not even knowing there's a question to be asked, to asking the question, to finding candidates for answers, to refining those answers forever.

As I said before, this has nothing at all to do with evolution. This is a question about abiogenesis. As for the answer, troutman already posted some information on it. Of course it wasn't always there, in our universe cause precedes effect so everything started at some point. As to the exact mechanism, we don't know yet.

Molecules don't leave fossils, so it's difficult to say if we'll ever truely know how life originated. If you wish to invoke God at this point, that's fine, though that's employing the God of the gaps again and as I said to me that really dimishes God, plus what happens if at a later date it WAS shown to originate naturally?

Two different questions. First, again there's ideas as to what was "before" the big bang (if that even means anything, how can you have "before" when time didn't exist??), but similar to abiogenesis it's nowhere near certain. Second question, order from chaos results because of the nature of reality. Forces act in a specific way, particles interact in specific ways, all these things create order from chaos every day without any influence from us.

I asked if you agreed that not all beliefs are equally valid.

I strongly disagree, how can someone's belief be valid if it is based on a flawed premise or based on faulty information? How can someone's belief be valid if it's the result of insanity, or intentional manipulation?

I believe I have an invisible dragon in my garage. Do you believe it too? Why not, if all beliefs are equally valid?

Unless we're missing each other with respect to the definition of the word belief here.

Eeep I misunderstood that one, the word valid was not the right one. Of course some beliefs are more valid than others. What I meant is that no one belief is more "right or wrong" than another, especially when discussing something that cannot be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. but everyone is certainly entitled to their own, whatever they may be.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What do they say or think when they come across something like this? It happens every day.

Here are some quotes of responses to exactly that news piece from freerepublic.com a SoCon American website.

6 million years ago? That’s incompatable with The Book. Did these “scientists” call in sick on God’s creation day?


19 posted on 03/20/2008 3:25:40 PM PDT by consistentpatriot

God created -- therefore the rules of science belong to him. And have you ever though that maybe, just maybe, the methods of dating are wrong? You guys always go back to your dating methods invented by men and proclaimed true. Forgive me if I go back to God's Word and trust that as truth over what man has to say.

102 posted on 03/20/2008 6:57:12 PM PDT by swampdweller

That’s just it, it does matter here. God’s Word is the absolute Truth, if there is no absolute Truth which it appears some believe, then how do you determine wrong and right. Evolution sets up a world were man does not have to answer to for his actions. So, were does one draw the line of right and wrong in a world without absolutes. I have chosen my beliefs and you have chosen yours. I cannot force my beliefs on you or on children, in the schools, but you can. My tax dollars go to teach kids a world view that I cannot agree with, that bothers me whether it is evolution, sensitivity training regarding homosexual unions or the beliefs of Islam..

121 posted on 03/20/2008 7:59:41 PM PDT by Siberian-psycho

[photon]

Originally Posted by arloiginla

I care very much about somoene else's eternal destiny but I also believe God gave everyone a free will and if being around someone like myself isn't enough to make you want to be different, to want what I have, no words i say are really going to soften your heart in the long run (most of the time).

Fair enough, that's pretty much the same approach I had when I was so inclined.

Because simple evolution is apparent around us, it can't even be disputed since it is happening every day. However since really there are no records that far back and no one can say for sure what things were like, say 10,000 years ago or by evolutionist estimates, millions and millions of years ago its pretty tough to believe for me, without some kind of blind faith, something I can't see.

But you didn't see creation by God either, so by that standard it should be difficult for you to believe that as well (unless it is by blind faith).

We weren't talking about historical records, we were talking about the applicability of the 2nd law as evidence against evolution. Evolution currently happens so the 2nd law isn't evidence against it. So that refutes that idea.

(At this point, when a key part of a premise is refuted, the logical thing to do is to reexamine the premise, however the typical creationist tack isn't to reexamine their concept of what creation is, they just move on to the next piece of "evidence", that's why it isn't science)

For the history part, if we don't know how things were 10,000 years ago, then neither evolution nor creationism are valid theories. The "God created it" isn't the default fallback position if something isn't known.

However, we do know how some things were tens, hundreds, and thousands of thousands of years ago. We have fossils, we have all kinds of geological evidence, and even if there was none of that the genetic evidence can stand by itself as well. Radiometric dating doesn't speak directly to evolution, but it does show the age of the earth, there are many things that show the earth to be far far older than 10,000 years.

There's so many things going on in our universe that you can't see. Do you disbelieve Quantum theory? Germ theory? Do you believe Lincon was a president? That electrons and not magic smoke power your computer?

That's the thing with evidence, you don't have to "see" it, you just have to observe it. Often things we create do the seeing for is, be it particle colliders or chemicals or electron microscopes, but those are all valid for evidence.

Eeep I misunderstood that one, the word valid was not the right one. Of course some beliefs are more valid than others. What I meant is that no one belief is more "right or wrong" than another, especially when discussing something that cannot be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. but everyone is certainly entitled to their own, whatever they may be.

I agree everyone is entitled to believe as they want; if people want to be ignorant they will be, you can't force someone to learn. But beliefs can be wrong. As I said before, nothing in science is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. Prove to me you exist. Prove to me you have free will. You can't.

I think beliefs can be more wrong when they go against all rational reason, but mostly I think beliefs are truly wrong when they are held as being invariable and never open to change.