PDA

View Full Version : Views regarding science



GTC
Aug 8th 2005, 03:16 PM
To me science and the new discoveries made in the various fields of science help further my understanding of how the world and how the universe works and in some cases those discoveries improve our lives but some of what has been discovered contradicts what is told in the Bible.

My question is how do you view science? Do you accept science as a way to find how things work? Is it a necessary evil? Or do you not pay attention to it and prefer to ignore it if it contradicts any beliefs of your own?

Armistead14
Aug 8th 2005, 05:15 PM
I think it is foolish for Christians to ignore science, most do. To think this world is a few thousand years old is just absurd. I do beleive in some evolution process, but only within the same species. Obviously, due to culture, climate, time, diet, ect.. mankind evolves somewhat, but man was always man, created by God. As much as science tries, it cannot change a species, only change within a species.

I am more of a scientific based Christian. I believe they both support each other. I think many Christians suffer from misleading doctrines of tradition and culture. The real truth about science and God prove each other. Many famous scientest now agree that this creation must have been designed. There are just too many processes taking place "billions", that could just not happen own there own.
Sceince can often explain when or how, but never what. That's where God comes in. When I look at all the perfection of creation, how everything in our universe is in such proper order, how can you not beleive in God. I think it takes more faith to be a athiest.

faithmyeyes
Aug 8th 2005, 05:21 PM
I do accept science as a way to find out how things work, as far as science extends. As an engineering/technical type, empirical observation and test has to be a part of my mindset.

I don't feel that scientific discoveries contradict what the Bible says. I believe the Bible is always true, but possibly not always literal. I don't think God gave us Scripture as a science text, but rather to communicate what He wants to say to mankind: that He thoughtfully and lovingly created us; that we chose to disobey Him and brought the curse of sin upon all creation; that He continues to love us and desires an intimate, knowing relationship with us; that He provided a way for us to be reconciled to Him through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; and that He offers ultimate victory over sin and death to those who will accept His loving sacrifice.

Concerning origins, for instance, the Bible may well be literal. Or it may not. In either case, God gets the message across that all things originated from Him, and were perfect until man rebelled. No scientific process can either confirm or contradict that message.

in peace
faithmyeyes

FaithSeeker
Aug 8th 2005, 10:19 PM
God gets the message across that all things originated from Him, and were perfect until man rebelled.
This is exactly what men using science, by way of evolution, are denying.

No form of evolution can exist before sin or otherwise God made a world that already contained death and suffering, therefore death is not the consequence of sin but was rather part of the design. I think if God says He made things perfect, then that is what they were: perfect.

The problem here is that people often confuse science with mans interpretation of science, unbelievers make science fit evolution because it allows them to deny God, believers make science fit evolution because it allows them to stay in good standing with the rest of the world. I think it is foolish to assume that science can overturn anything God has said or done!

Cheers.

serapha
Aug 8th 2005, 10:59 PM
To me science and the new discoveries made in the various fields of science help further my understanding of how the world and how the universe works and in some cases those discoveries improve our lives but some of what has been discovered contradicts what is told in the Bible.

My question is how do you view science? Do you accept science as a way to find how things work? Is it a necessary evil? Or do you not pay attention to it and prefer to ignore it if it contradicts any beliefs of your own?

Hi there!

:)

I'm a fundamentalist when it comes to the Bible, and when it comes to science, I still view the Bible as true. I guess I'm reading the wrong "science" journals.

However, God didn't give us the Bible to be the focal point of Christianity, God gave us the "Logos" to be the focal point of Christianity. I don't put my faith in the Bible, but rather in the Saviour of whom the book is written.

~serapha~

Son_kissed
Aug 8th 2005, 11:30 PM
Hi GTC,

Welcome to the message board.

I agree with both posts by Armistead and Faithmyeyes. But, I also agree with Faith Seeker in that I donít believe science can ďoverturn anything God has said or done.Ē When the Bible and conclusions drawn from scientific study disagree, then I think that either man has incorrectly interpreted some scriptures, or the scientific theory is incorrect.

Christians, such as myself, who accept some of the conclusions drawn from scientific study regarding evolution donĎt ďmake science fit evolution because it allows them to stay in good standing with the rest of the world.Ē I believe that when God performs a miracle, we can see the evidence of that miracle. When leprosy was healed, the skin was visibly healed. It didnít retain the appearance of leprosy. When Jesus healed the blind and deaf, they could see and hear. He didnít say, ďI know you still canít see or hear, but believe me, youíre healed.Ē They experienced the evidence of that healing. And, I donít think the earth is only 6,000 years old, as young earth creationists believe, or it would appear to be only 6,000 years old.

So, in conclusion, I personally think we have misinterpreted the Genesis account when we interpret the 6 days of creation as literal (in the way we have generally understood it- that being from our perspective). The Hebrew word for ďdayĒ often is used as ďperiod of time.Ē Likewise, I believe that there is sufficient evidence for micro evolution (within species), and since we have no detailed explanation in Genesis about how man was created, other than we were formed of the "dust of the earth," I donít think itís absurd to believe that He may have used some process of evolution to accomplish the intended result. Additionally, God didnít say creation was perfect. He said it was ďgood.Ē As far as humans were concerned, he saw that we were ďvery good.Ē Still, not, necessarily perfect (yet). Even so, I donít think there was death, (at least not spiritually), prior to the fall, and perhaps not physically.

While I disagree with Faith Seeker to a point, I donít wish to debate either of our positions (and neither should we do that in this forum). I wanted only to share my views in response to the question originally posed.

Blessings,

Son_kissed

Son_kissed
Aug 8th 2005, 11:50 PM
And, by the way, GTC, what about you? What do you think?

If the Bible didn't seem to be contradictory to some scientific discoveries would you then believe the truth it conveys as found in the Gospel message of Jesus, and concerning mankind and his imperfection as we stand before a good, righteous and just God?

TEITZY
Aug 9th 2005, 03:14 AM
This is exactly what men using science, by way of evolution, are denying.

No form of evolution can exist before sin or otherwise God made a world that already contained death and suffering, therefore death is not the consequence of sin but was rather part of the design. I think if God says He made things perfect, then that is what they were: perfect.

The problem here is that people often confuse science with mans interpretation of science, unbelievers make science fit evolution because it allows them to deny God, believers make science fit evolution because it allows them to stay in good standing with the rest of the world. I think it is foolish to assume that science can overturn anything God has said or done!

Cheers.

You should be preaching that message in churches across America. Why is it that non-believers can see the obvious incompatibilities between the theory evolution & the Bible, while Christians continue to embrace evolution which clearly undermines the authority of the scriptures & ultimately the Gospel message itself. As FaithSeeker has rightly pointed out, if evolution is true then death & suffering (and lots of it) existed before sin entered the world. The Bible clearly says that death & suffering are the result of original sin (Rom 5:12, 6:23). If evolution is true then the "wages" or payment for sin is NOT death, since death came before sin entered. Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty or ransom price of our sin. Jesus tasted "death for every man" to redeem us from sin. The "sting of death is sin". "The soul that sinneth, it shall die". Death & sin, death & sin, death & sin...the two are inseparable. Evolution divorces death from sin & therefore undermines the work of Christ at Calvary. If death isn't the result & punishment for sin, then why did Jesus have to die? Why do we need to be saved from sin if there are no consequences for our sin? Why do we need a Saviour in the first place?

Rom 5:17 For if by the one manís offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)


unbelievers make science fit evolution because it allows them to deny God,

Exactly! (see Rom 1:18-20)



believers make science fit evolution because it allows them to stay in good standing with the rest of the world.


Here I would replace "science" with "the Bible" but their motive is still the same.

As to the original posters question, I think Biblical Christians as well as those with a Christian worldview have generally embraced science because they have found it to be compatible with the Bible and a belief in an eternal, almighty Creator God. Many of the greatest scientists both past and present have had a Christian worldview which has proved a help rather than a hinderance in discovering more about the earth and universe. Science has taught us much about the world in which we live however when it comes to explaining life (the non-physical) or the meaning of life science is dumb & silent, incapable of providing mankind with answers to the most important questions, answers that can only be found in the Word of God by those who by faith embrace the truth.

Cheers
Leigh

karenoka27
Aug 9th 2005, 03:51 AM
Definition of Science-"The observation, identification, descriptive, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

Since I don't understand a word of that I rest in Isaiah 55:8-9-"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,"saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts."

I think man will spend all of his days trying to understand God's creation and man's mind. That's not necessarily a bad thing. However man's mind does have a limit and God's does not. So no matter what we discover, invent, etc. it still cannot compare to the mind of God..

Son_kissed
Aug 9th 2005, 06:58 AM
If my post encouraged debate here, I apologize to everyone reading. It was not my intention.

And, in case there was any doubt, I respect the beliefs and opinions of those who disagree with me here. I believe that we have a Creator and that He created everything with order and intention, just as Genesis expresses. I also have no doubt that God could have created everything in six literal days, I just don't think He did.

But, I know that my understanding could be wrong. And, in fact, know nothing with certainty save Christ and him crucified- the Son of God, raised again and ascended to the right hand of the Father. The beautiful work he's done in my life gives me complete assurance.

Blessings

Big T
Aug 9th 2005, 01:27 PM
I love science and it is a great help to mankind. But as in everything, created, there is evil in it. Without science we would not be talking about it on here. lol But also without science we would not have certian biochem weapons. So there you go.

FaithSeeker
Aug 9th 2005, 01:45 PM
TEITZY,

The reason I specified 'science' in relation to believers and unbelievers alike is because I believe that science would be in perfect harmony with the Word of God if it was 'observed' without bias, however as you said the motive is the same. While I have marked myself as a non-believer, I would actually call myself more of a very confused believer, the reason I chosen the 'I am not a christian' title was because no other title fit my situation. However, I do know many non-believers who can see clearly that the Word of God and evolution simply do not mix.


Hi GTC,

Welcome to the message board.

I agree with both posts by Armistead and Faithmyeyes. But, I also agree with Faith Seeker in that I donít believe science can ďoverturn anything God has said or done.Ē When the Bible and conclusions drawn from scientific study disagree, then I think that either man has incorrectly interpreted some scriptures, or the scientific theory is incorrect.

Christians, such as myself, who accept some of the conclusions drawn from scientific study regarding evolution donĎt ďmake science fit evolution because it allows them to stay in good standing with the rest of the world.Ē I believe that when God performs a miracle, we can see the evidence of that miracle. When leprosy was healed, the skin was visibly healed. It didnít retain the appearance of leprosy. When Jesus healed the blind and deaf, they could see and hear. He didnít say, ďI know you still canít see or hear, but believe me, youíre healed.Ē They experienced the evidence of that healing. And, I donít think the earth is only 6,000 years old, as young earth creationists believe, or it would appear to be only 6,000 years old.

So, in conclusion, I personally think we have misinterpreted the Genesis account when we interpret the 6 days of creation as literal (in the way we have generally understood it- that being from our perspective). The Hebrew word for ďdayĒ often is used as ďperiod of time.Ē Likewise, I believe that there is sufficient evidence for micro evolution (within species), and since we have no detailed explanation in Genesis about how man was created, other than we were formed of the "dust of the earth," I donít think itís absurd to believe that He may have used some process of evolution to accomplish the intended result. Additionally, God didnít say creation was perfect. He said it was ďgood.Ē As far as humans were concerned, he saw that we were ďvery good.Ē Still, not, necessarily perfect (yet). Even so, I donít think there was death, (at least not spiritually), prior to the fall, and perhaps not physically.

While I disagree with Faith Seeker to a point, I donít wish to debate either of our positions (and neither should we do that in this forum). I wanted only to share my views in response to the question originally posed.

Blessings,

Son_kissed
In what way does it not appear to be 6,000 years old!?! Your eyes surely cannot discern this by simply looking, therefore you are taking the methods as used by men as though the methods were infallible. I know the argument has been presented that even though some 'mishap dates' made many years ago did not stop the use of those dating methods, but this does not mean the results are anymore reliable, mankind in fact very rarely learn from their mistakes, this is evident from history. What makes this any different?

No matter how you put it, you take the word of mans methods over the Word of God, in fact you say we need to reinterpret scripture because it disagrees with mans methods!?! This is the exact meaning of what I stated that christians in your position do and then you argued against it in the very post in which you were guilty of it!?!

I am sorry if I have continued this debate but your post simply could not be left to rest. :cry:

Son_kissed
Aug 9th 2005, 03:29 PM
Hi FaithSeeker


No matter how you put it, you take the word of mans methods over the Word of God

Simply not true.

My Bible says that I am a new creature in Christ. Well, I look at myself in the mirror and see the same old human creature that Iíve always been. My eyes are still blue, my hair is still brown, my skin looks the same, my blood type hasnít changed, etc. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that Iím the very same creature I was before. But Godís word says, and I believe that itís true, that I am a new creature. Would you recommend that I just go ahead and believe that I am literally a new creature as we would generally understand the word if written in any other book with English text? If not, and you donít think that I am literally a new creature as we generally understand the word, are you taking my (manís) method and itís conclusion over Godís word? Again, we believe Godís word is true. So, what we do, since evidence would sufficiently suggest that Iím not literally a new creature, is understand that Godís thoughts are not our thoughts, and that ďnew creatureĒ probably doesnít mean a literal new creature.

If we want to understand what that verse might mean instead, then we have to look it differently. And thatís what we do. And thatís what I, personally, believe is necessary when reading the creation account in Genesis since I believe evidence is sufficient to reasonably conclude that the universe is older than 6,000 years. Iím not taking "manís method" over Godís word in that instance any more than you would be in concluding that I am not literally some new creature.

I would love to ramble on and address some other things in your post, but I need to get to work, and this should not be as big an issue as we make it, anyway. If anyone has any other concerns I would really appreciate it if you would bring it up as a new thread in the ďScience and the BibleĒ forum, or PM me or whatever. I really donít wish to argue about it though, and hope you will respect that. Salvation does not depend on a belief in a young or old earth, and debate about it is usually not very edifying. In fact many allow things such as this to cause division among us (remember Galileo) when division is not necessary and contradictory to GodĎs will for us. As Sir David Brewster (Martyrs of Science) says, "The boldness, may we not say the recklessness, with which Galileo insisted on making proselytes of his enemies, served but to alienate them from the truth" I would say that all creationists whether they believe in a young or old earth, need to be careful not to do such a thing.

Thanks.

FaithSeeker
Aug 9th 2005, 11:42 PM
See here: http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=521987

GTC
Aug 11th 2005, 07:07 PM
Thank you all for your thoughtful and lengthy replies.

You all seem to recognize science as an important part of human society but donít seem to know much about science at all. You only seem to acknowledge it without understanding it and Iím not sure how to proceed further because of this.

I donít want call this ignorance but I donít have any other word for it. If you tried looking at the basics of astronomy and geology it wouldnít be long before you realized that the Earth and the universe are much, much older than merely 5000 yrs but alas it is silly for me to point this out to you be it regular Christian or the Creationists Iíve been debating with you will either simply ignore me or feed me crackpot theory (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets2.html) after crackpot theory (http://www.kent-hovind.com/theory.htm) without even bothering to provide any commentary or information. Iím simply wasting my time in interacting with this culture of faith.

Magnetic
Aug 11th 2005, 09:07 PM
Thank you all for your thoughtful and lengthy replies.

You all seem to recognize science as an important part of human society but donít seem to know much about science at all. You only seem to acknowledge it without understanding it and Iím not sure how to proceed further because of this.

I donít want call this ignorance but I donít have any other word for it. If you tried looking at the basics of astronomy and geology it wouldnít be long before you realized that the Earth and the universe are much, much older than merely 5000 yrs but alas it is silly for me to point this out to you be it regular Christian or the Creationists Iíve been debating with you will either simply ignore me or feed me crackpot theory (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets2.html) after crackpot theory (http://www.kent-hovind.com/theory.htm) without even bothering to provide any commentary or information. Iím simply wasting my time in interacting with this culture of faith.

There are a few of us that embrace the Christian faith, yet have no problem with an earth much much older than 6,000-10,000 years old. The evidence is there. Make no mistake about that. I think it is a far side of the spectrum, both sides, to be either completely a "6,000 year old earth creationist", as well as strict "Darwinian evolutionist".

It's an old discussion that's been mulled over a lot.

GTC
Aug 11th 2005, 11:43 PM
My apologies to everyone who has taken interest in this thread I went off on a bit of a rant in my last post. I have been debating creationists the last few days and havenít seen a moderate position in a long while.

DesiderioDomini9
Aug 12th 2005, 07:36 AM
if you want to see the actual scientific proof for the earth being less than 10k years old, read "unlocking the mysteries of creation" by Dennis Petersen.

This is the most readable and accurate work ive seen, and its got pictures!!!!

Heres a link to some info on the book, and i know they are selling it, but scroll down and see some chapter titles.

http://www.creationresource.org/Shopping_cart/books/Book_Pages/unlocking_mysteries.htm

There is simply too much proof. All other theories just dont have any proof, just guesses.

praise_habit
Aug 12th 2005, 08:07 AM
This has kinda switched gears on me. Well, I personally would say that the earth is less than 10K years, but it doesn't really matter.

I think (and I think a lot of Christians would agree) that science is a wonderful thing. It's not evil. I think that a large part of science can fall directly into one of the first commands God gave humans: "Subdue the earth."

I also think there's a fine line between subduing the earth and playing God.

I have been typing all day, and I really don't feel like explaining any of that. Maybe tomorrow.

Magnetic
Aug 12th 2005, 01:50 PM
Thanks, GTC! By the way, go to your UserCP. I left a message for you in there! You may disregard it if you wish. I spoke too soon about one of the things in there (which is okay to leave in). ;)



On a side not, praise_habit, do you happen to know the meaning of your avatar?

SpartanII
Aug 12th 2005, 02:51 PM
If you tried looking at the basics of astronomy and geology it wouldnít be long before you realized that the Earth and the universe are much, much older than merely 5000 yrs

Prove it. ;)






.........

GTC
Aug 12th 2005, 03:02 PM
Prove it. ;)

All right then thatís start with something basic like geology.

What are the rocks like in your area?

GTC
Aug 12th 2005, 03:10 PM
if you want to see the actual scientific proof for the earth being less than 10k years old, read "unlocking the mysteries of creation" by Dennis Petersen.

This is the most readable and accurate work ive seen, and its got pictures!!!!

Heres a link to some info on the book, and i know they are selling it, but scroll down and see some chapter titles.

http://www.creationresource.org/Shopping_cart/books/Book_Pages/unlocking_mysteries.htm

There is simply too much proof. All other theories just dont have any proof, just guesses.

It seems there is some debate in the creationist community about the accuracy of the book you have recommended.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0113peterson.asp

But next time I visit the library I will order a copy to pick up.

SpartanII
Aug 12th 2005, 04:04 PM
All right then thatís start with something basic like geology.

What are the rocks like in your area?

No. I'm not going to debate you since the bottom line here is that you can't prove the age of the earth (if you did I'm sure you'd be famous) and I can't prove my belief in Creationism.

Neither theory has been proven by the evidence. Both theories should be treated as "religious" beliefs, since they are both held by faith, separate and distinct from testable, repeatable data

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/age-of-earth.htm

Go ahead and begin discrediting the link, it doesn't matter, the quote demonstrates my point anyway. :D

GTC
Aug 12th 2005, 04:21 PM
No. I'm not going to debate you since the bottom line here is that you can't prove the age of the earth (if you did I'm sure you'd be famous) and I can't prove my belief in Creationism.

Neither theory has been proven by the evidence. Both theories should be treated as "religious" beliefs, since they are both held by faith, separate and distinct from testable, repeatable data

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/age-of-earth.htm

Go ahead and begin discrediting the link, it doesn't matter, the quote demonstrates my point anyway. :D

You ask me to prove the Earth is older than 5000 yrs then when I ask a basic question you refuse to discuss it. Then you throw a wall of text at me for me to read (something which Iím getting tiered of doing in every discussion) then tell me it doesnít matter if I point out any errors in the article because of that little quote of yours which demonstrates absolutely nothing other than that it fits in with your point of view.

Thanks for proving that no one can get anywhere in threads like this.

SpartanII
Aug 12th 2005, 05:24 PM
You ask me to prove the Earth is older than 5000 yrs then when I ask a basic question you refuse to discuss it.

Of course, since you and I can't prove our beliefs. What's the point other than for you to press your views on us?


Then you throw a wall of text at me for me to read (something which Iím getting tiered of doing in every discussion) then tell me it doesnít matter if I point out any errors in the article because of that little quote of yours which demonstrates absolutely nothing other than that it fits in with your point of view.

Wall of text? You mean this little thing?

Neither theory has been proven by the evidence. Both theories should be treated as "religious" beliefs, since they are both held by faith, separate and distinct from testable, repeatable data

The link was just a source, I didn't expect you to read the whole site, lol. The part of the text that I quoted does not reflect the views on either side of the argument. It's just a fact- neither theory has been proven by the evidence.



Thanks for proving that no one can get anywhere in threads like this.

Actually, you should be thanking yourself.

Magnetic
Aug 12th 2005, 05:35 PM
Actually, the light coming from distant galaxies has taken FAR more years to reach our planet than 6,000 - 10,000 years. MUCH farther.

FaithSeeker
Aug 13th 2005, 12:56 AM
Actually, the light coming from distant galaxies has taken FAR more years to reach our planet than 6,000 - 10,000 years. MUCH farther.It amazes me how the ideas that agree with man are always absolute, no doubt at all, but the ideas that agree with the bible are always flawed, full of doubt and misunderstanding. This goes for everything ever posted about mans ideas, not just the quote above.

Truly Amazing

Fubajuba
Aug 13th 2005, 04:08 AM
Science is not a religion. Unfortunately, the secular world has accepted it as one.

People assume "Science=the antithesis of God". It simply is not true. It has most definitely deviated from God, but that doesn't matter. Science is ultimately the study of how God works, without the spirituality of it all. Unfortunately, humans add their spin on it and it has gotten to the point of today's science.

Science is now indoctrinated world-wide. American children are taught daily that evolution is the way we came to be, and that religion is ridiculous. I just graduated high-school, and I can vouch for my school. We were force fed secular crap all day ,every day. Religion is now a educational-no-mans-land in school. Political Correctness is poisoning the well of public education. Cultural saturation is turning old racism into newer uglier forms passed off as "tolerance" and blind acceptance. Religious doctrine is thrown out the window as childish, fantastic, whimsical, and utterly stupid.

One perfect example: Almost every single human being today has been taught that the world is billions of years old, and dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, and humans have evolved from monkey's over thousands of years. This is more of a recent problem in that all the technology we use to determine such facts was recently developed. Few people know about the fact that it is innacurate in it's findings 85% of the time (i am speaking of carbon dating). It boils down to a bunch of theories (including the half life theories) and reliance on man-made machines and devices to disprove God's word.

Science can be great, but when used as a nemesis against God, it is utterly insane. :B

DesiderioDomini9
Aug 14th 2005, 09:19 PM
It seems there is some debate in the creationist community about the accuracy of the book you have recommended.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/doc...113peterson.asp (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0113peterson.asp)

But next time I visit the library I will order a copy to pick up.



i was in the process of writing a response to this, and after spending around 2 hours documenting some mistakes in this article, my computer zapped it when i went to post. In my stupidity, i failed to save it. I will rewrite it and post it soon.

DesiderioDomini9
Aug 15th 2005, 12:24 AM
it appears that this wont be necessary, as there have a few responses to these accusations.

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/p11.html[/url]

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/p3.html

http://www.creationresource.org/read_reviews.htm

[url="http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/p11.html"] (http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/p3.html)

praise_habit
Aug 15th 2005, 10:47 PM
On a side note, praise_habit, do you happen to know the meaning of your avatar?

Yep. It's a Triquetra, and it can be used to symbolize the Trinity, the triplicity of mind/body/spirit or the domains of earth, sky and sea.

It isn't a stylized writing of 666, although some people think it is.

Magnetic
Aug 17th 2005, 08:48 PM
It amazes me how the ideas that agree with man are always absolute, no doubt at all, but the ideas that agree with the bible are always flawed, full of doubt and misunderstanding. This goes for everything ever posted about mans ideas, not just the quote above.

Truly Amazing

No, you can't use the term 'absolute' in most things. It is just the case that when it comes to distances of galaxies, their light has taken a lot longer to get to the Earth than the Biblical dates. This goes for other evidences of an old Earth.

Concerning another post:

By the way, those links to AiG and creationresearch bickering over their theories was both amusing and rather scary.

:lol: :hmm: :eek:

DesiderioDomini9
Aug 17th 2005, 10:15 PM
AiG seems to be a little off in their motivation.

They dont want anything spoken in defense of creation unless they have verified it, and it seems as though they want to be nominated as the authority when it comes to apologetics of creation.

They are trying to do something that is great, but they have awful motivation.

GTC you seem to be very educated in science, so I have a better book to suggest. "case for creation" (lee strobel again) will be right up your alley. I have seen many evolutionists who get extremely mad after reading it, so if you arent open to truth, I wouldnt read it, youll just get ticked off.

May I ask you if you are here to try to disprove creation, or to find out what is true? (not that Im saying if you dont agree with me that you arent trying to find truth).

I havent been around this board very long, but I enjoy talking to seekers who are truely trying to find truth. It sharpens me.

What are these specific proofs for an old earth? That way, I can do some research and find some answers.

ONE THING I KNOW........too often neither side offers the entire truth when it comes to an debate. Ive seen evolution books grossly mislead and leave out evidence, and ive seen many creation books that just ignore obvious facts. Therefore, you must try to find those who are trying to EDUCATE you, and not convince you. I promise to do that, and I hope others here will do the same. Otherwise, :B

SpartanII
Aug 17th 2005, 10:57 PM
GTC you seem to be very educated in science, so I have a better book to suggest. "case for creation" (lee strobel again) will be right up your alley. I have seen many evolutionists who get extremely mad after reading it, so if you arent open to truth, I wouldnt read it, youll just get ticked off.



Sometimes the truth hurts. ;)

FaithSeeker
Aug 17th 2005, 11:37 PM
No, you can't use the term 'absolute' in most things ... It is just the case that when it comes to distances of galaxies, their light has taken a lot longer to get to the Earth than the Biblical dates ...You seem pretty absolute about that!

By the way, how does anyone know how long it takes light to travel from deep space to earth? The obvious assumption is that light travels at the same speed in all situations. But what if it doesn't?

The distinct difference between how we believe is that you think that mans understanding of science trumps what God has revealed, I think what God has revealed trumps everything...

Cheers. :)

GTC
Aug 18th 2005, 12:27 AM
GTC you seem to be very educated in science, so I have a better book to suggest. "case for creation" (lee strobel again) will be right up your alley. I have seen many evolutionists who get extremely mad after reading it, so if you arent open to truth, I wouldnt read it, youll just get ticked off.

The book you are referring to is it "The case for a creator" by lee strobel? You had me running in circles on google trying to find it.

As for my education Iím just a high school graduate who had average grades. Science is a subject I enjoy researching on my own, itís sort of just a hobby of mine.


May I ask you if you are here to try to disprove creation, or to find out what is true? (not that Im saying if you dont agree with me that you arent trying to find truth).

Am I trying to disprove creation theory? Yes and no. No because I think its best that I confine my posting to this thread for now and yes because if anyone does state an argument which I know to be false in this thread then I have no problem deconstructing it.


What are these specific proofs for an old earth? That way, I can do some research and find some answers.

I suggest picking one subject that interests you, either astronomy, geology, or biology and researching the subject in your leisure time.

Biology is a more complicated subject and may be difficult to grasp, Geology might slap you in the face with proven facts that are contradictory to what Creationism has taught you, and astronomy for me is the most interesting subject because there are still discoveries being made, such as Kupiter belt objects(planets smaller than Pluto) out beyond Pluto, extra solar planets(planets orbiting other stars), and probes like Cassini collecting new data on Saturn.


ONE THING I KNOW........too often neither side offers the entire truth when it comes to an debate. Ive seen evolution books grossly mislead and leave out evidence, and ive seen many creation books that just ignore obvious facts. Therefore, you must try to find those who are trying to EDUCATE you, and not convince you. I promise to do that, and I hope others here will do the same. Otherwise, :B

Debates are a bad way to learn about a subject because there can be good debaters who can get away with ignoring or misrepresenting data and bad debaters who just canít argue. As for books scientists or authors usually make the mistake of thinking everyone has accepted the subject matter as truth and that little time needs to be spent verifying it because believe it or not the scientific community usually just ignores creation theory.

GTC
Aug 18th 2005, 12:37 AM
By the way, how does anyone know how long it takes light to travel from deep space to earth? The obvious assumption is that light travels at the same speed in all situations. But what if it doesn't?

Light travels at a speed of 1,079,252,848.80 KM per hour and yes it is constant. Unless you want to argue against the theory of relativity I suggest you forget you even posted that.


The distinct difference between how we believe is that you think that mans understanding of science trumps what God has revealed, I think what God has revealed trumps everything...

Simply saying God did it and making up excusses won't get you anywhere with me.

LauraMegan
Aug 18th 2005, 01:12 AM
I've been following this thread, and I have a couple things to throw in. I'm a Christian and I love science. I view science as a wonderful way to find out how the universe works (and scientists have only been able to just TOUCH on that), how the world works, and how our own biological processes work. In terms of finding creation and modern science compatible... I don't see why they can't be. I'm not referring to the Genesis account here, though. I'm referring to the idea that I find it possible for God to have used EVERY facet of science to create the Universe.

The young earth theory doesn't work for me. Maybe this whole thread should belong in the science forum, and I suppose it could always be moved over there by a mod, but I want to share something with you all. This is the ORIGIN of why many Christians today believe in a 6,000 year-old creation.


Irish Bishop James Ussher (1581-1656) wrote a chronology of the Old Testament, in which he added up all the generations of men and women mentioned in the Bible since Adam and Eve, and pegged Creation at 4004 B.C., at 2:30 p.m., Sunday, October 23! One person is said to have asked the bishop, "And pray, Holy Father, what was God doing before he created the universe?" To which Ussher replied impatiently, "Creating hell for those who ask such questions!" - Source: The Science Class You Wish You Had by David Eliot Brody and Arnold R. Brody, Ph.D. Page 153.

As anyone here can see... this is one of the reasons why people believe that the world was created about 6,000 years ago. It's speculative at best, it has NO scientific basis, it assumes that EVERY generation that ever lived was mentioned in the Old Testament, AND it assumes that the Old Testament was entirely correct. If anyone attempted to prove this case in a court of law today, speculation like this would probably get tossed out as very weak "evidence". Yes, it's true that "creation science" sprang up, and it's true that debates rage over who's "right", but this first argument concerning the age of the earth at the very least falls under suspect.

Sorry to go off on such a long tangent. But again, I love science and I am a Christian who believes the universe was created through the use of chemistry, physics, biology, all the atomic principles.. and through the use of other principles we haven't discovered yet. We've been making scientific discoveries for thousands of years, although most recently, for at least the last 500 years those discoveries have actually evolved into modern science. My prediction? We'll keep making discoveries that'll paint an even clearer picture for us later. :)

Laura

FaithSeeker
Aug 18th 2005, 01:49 PM
Light travels at a speed of 1,079,252,848.80 KM per hour and yes it is constant. Unless you want to argue against the theory of relativity I suggest you forget you even posted that.I guess last time you were in deep space you measured the speed of light and this is the reason you know for sure that it is constant in all situations!?!

1,079,252,848.80 KM eh? To determine this man did what? Went 1,079,252,848.80 KM away from the light source and started a timer? Obviously not, man has only ever dreamed of travelling such distances. The truth is that men capture lights speed over a very small distance and then multiply it to arrive at the hourly rate. So in reality you cannot be absolutely sure that light can travel that far in an hour, you assume it!!


Simply saying God did it and making up excusses won't get you anywhere with me.God is the final source of all authority and regardless of wether it goes anywhere with you or not is irrelevant.

FaithSeeker
Aug 18th 2005, 01:53 PM
Unless you want to argue against the theory of relativity I suggest you forget you even posted that.Is this one of those times that theory is not equal to theory, but rather equal to fact? Because I really think you should be posting 'the fact of relativity' because a theory is well, a theory...

Magnetic
Aug 18th 2005, 01:57 PM
You seem pretty absolute about that!

By the way, how does anyone know how long it takes light to travel from deep space to earth? The obvious assumption is that light travels at the same speed in all situations. But what if it doesn't?

Along with what GTC said about this, I post this from information I have because it is said well:


The ďyardstickĒ that is used is ďcepheid variableĒ stars. Cepheid variables are stars that "pulsate," becoming progressively brighter and then dimmer at regular intervals ranging from 3 days to 50 days. They were first detected by the 21-year-old English astronomer John Goodricke in 1784, and were named "cepheid variables" because the first such star detected by Goodricke was Delta Cepheus. Goodricke lost his hearing as a young child due to a bout of scarlet fever, and while he learned to converse through lip reading, his aristocratic family never fully accepted him. He died of pneumonia at age 21, and was buried in the family plot. His tombstone reads simply, "J.G."



In time, cepheid variables would become a powerful tool in measuring the universe. The first step came in 1912 when Henrietta Swan Leavitt, a clerk at the Harvard Observatory, discovered a relationship between the brightness and "period" (length of pulsation) of cepheid variables. Leavitt discovered that the apparent brightness (luminosity) and period of cepheid variables were directly related--the brighter the star, the longer the period. This relationship became known as the "luminosity-period relationship."



Then, a few years later, in 1917, astronomer Harlow Shapely (born in a dirt-floor shack on a small farm in southwest Missouri) was able to correlate the periods of cepheid variables with their true magnitudes by examining a few close cepheids whose actual distances were known by geometric triangulation. Shapely composed a "distance modulus" table correlating differences between actual and apparent luminosity to actual distance. The idea is thisóif you know that a light bulb is 100 watts, you can easily measure its distance from you if you know its apparent brightness. The difference between actual and apparent brightness can be converted into a measurement of distance. For the first time, the limiting chains of triangulation were broken, and distances to the galaxies could be computed!



Cepheid variables became the universeís ďyardstick,Ē and they are commonly used today to measure distances to 75 million light years or so. These measurements, and distances, are improving each year thanks to very accurate studies of cepheids made by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST).

I hope that answers some of your questions.

FaithSeeker
Aug 18th 2005, 02:18 PM
... These measurements, and distances, are improving each year ...While it was an interesting read, it still poses only assumptions, clearly these 'methods' are not absolute because they are improving, in a couple of years, decades or whatever amount of time, another 'amazing' discovery will be made, most likely overtuning a once 'absolute' theory!!!

Man can only guess at how this world functions, we may get close to knowing, but we always seem to find something new...

Fubajuba
Aug 18th 2005, 03:43 PM
Science is great at answering questions of "How?", and sometimes even "When?" or "What?". In the end, however, science may never answer the question "Why?".

Magnetic
Aug 18th 2005, 04:07 PM
So you would say that all the stars and galaxies in the universe are only as old as our planet, as created in Genesis, being 6,000 - 10,000 years old? :hmm:

FaithSeeker
Aug 18th 2005, 11:46 PM
I would say it is the only thing that fits with what God has said. :hmm:

:)

Magnetic
Aug 19th 2005, 01:11 AM
I would say it is the only thing that fits with what God has said. :hmm:

:)

I am going under the assumption that you are knowlegable in Light Year distances. Therefore, how is it that we can plainly see the light emitting from galaxies that are clearly a VASTE distance from our galaxy (much more than biblical dates), with the understanding that if they WERE only 6,000 - 10,000 years old, their light would not have reached our planet yet? :confused

Radagast
Aug 19th 2005, 08:05 AM
To me science and the new discoveries made in the various fields of science help further my understanding of how the world and how the universe works...
As a scientist, I agree with you on that...


... but some of what has been discovered contradicts what is told in the Bible.
...but not with this.

Those so-called "contradictions" indicate that either the data doesn't mean what you think it means, or you're misreading the Bible (as was done in Galileo's day).

As a Christian, I believe that Nature is a book too (Romans 1:20: For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitiesóhis eternal power and divine natureóhave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse) and God cannot contradict in one book what He has written in the other.

-- Radagast

FaithSeeker
Aug 19th 2005, 10:21 AM
I am going under the assumption that you are knowlegable in Light Year distances. Therefore, how is it that we can plainly see the light emitting from galaxies that are clearly a VASTE distance from our galaxy (much more than biblical dates), with the understanding that if they WERE only 6,000 - 10,000 years old, their light would not have reached our planet yet? :confusedAccording to current theory light always travels at a constant rate, but just because there has been no discovery of something that might affect the speed of light does not mean it cannot be affected. If the bible says the world was formed only 6-10 thousand years ago, then it was, there has never been, nor will there ever be any 100% absolute proof against the revealed word of God, it is impossible!!!

DesiderioDomini9
Aug 19th 2005, 10:28 AM
Biology is a more complicated subject and may be difficult to grasp, Geology might slap you in the face with proven facts that are contradictory to what Creationism has taught you, and astronomy for me is the most interesting subject because there are still discoveries being made, such as Kupiter belt objects(planets smaller than Pluto) out beyond Pluto, extra solar planets(planets orbiting other stars), and probes like Cassini collecting new data on Saturn.




Actually it was geology that got me started in questioning the facts of creation. It was a pitiful sight, geology is the worst taught subject on the planet. There are simply too many lies being told. I found out that just about everything taught to me in my historical geo class had left vital info out.

Send me over one of these proofs, and let me see if it holds water. To post all the ones I know are false would bore lots of people here, unless yall want me to do it.

Im alot like you, GTC. Im an ed major, but my learning takes place on my own time. I just love to read, and I cant get enough knowledge of truth. God has blessed me with patience to read, so i plan on using it and sharing that knowledge with others. One thing you wont catch me doing is leaving out info for the sake of an arguement. If I was to convince you with half the truth, your conversion is useless. Only God can "convince" you, and you will have to see that with your own eyes, not b/c of anything I said.

Wanna start with Stanley Miller?

DesiderioDomini9
Aug 19th 2005, 10:36 AM
for those who dont know, stanley miller tried an experiment to see if he could recreate the process that created the first life form. Basically, he gathered up what elements should have been existing during the early earth and thought that if meteors were hitting earth at the rate they assumed, perhaps this could form like, with such an explosion of heat. When they recreated this, they found that amino acids were formed, which everyone knows are the building blocks of life!!!! (my short version, theres more)http://http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

WHAT THEY DIDNT TELL YOU:
Every true scientists knows that the vast MAJORITY of the amino acids formed during that expirement would kill any evolving life form. Not all amino acids form life, and only about 5%(this is debated up to 20%) of these acids were life forming amino acids.

The Stanley Miller experiment remains an unproven theory.

Bring on the next victim.

Magnetic
Aug 19th 2005, 01:33 PM
According to current theory light always travels at a constant rate, but just because there has been no discovery of something that might affect the speed of light does not mean it cannot be affected. If the bible says the world was formed only 6-10 thousand years ago, then it was, there has never been, nor will there ever be any 100% absolute proof against the revealed word of God, it is impossible!!!

IF (and that's a big 'if') the speed rate of light is variable, it would only be in a miniscule amount, understanding the quality of light, thus your contention still doesn't account for the most distant galaxies being only 6,000 - 10,000 years old. Again, if they were, we would not be able to see them today, and in fact, wouldn't see them for another couple thousand (and some, a few million) years.

GTC
Aug 19th 2005, 05:29 PM
Just to be clear FaithSeeker. Are you questioning how scientists arrived at the figure for the speed of light? Or are you suggesting that the speed of light is so fast that the 14 billion light-years of the visible universe is really just light traveling at such a rate of speed as to reach us in 5000 years?

GTC
Aug 19th 2005, 07:24 PM
...but not with this.

Those so-called "contradictions" indicate that either the data doesn't mean what you think it means, or you're misreading the Bible (as was done in Galileo's day).

As a Christian, I believe that Nature is a book too (Romans 1:20: For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitiesóhis eternal power and divine natureóhave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse) and God cannot contradict in one book what He has written in the other.

-- Radagast

All right Iíll concede on the understanding that the Bible is open to the interpretation of the man who reads it but the interpretation promoted by Creationists is not compatible with mainstream science.

GTC
Aug 19th 2005, 08:34 PM
The last of my double posting.


Actually it was geology that got me started in questioning the facts of creation. It was a pitiful sight, geology is the worst taught subject on the planet. There are simply too many lies being told. I found out that just about everything taught to me in my historical geo class had left vital info out.

I believe the following quote represents my view on the public education system best.

ďThose who can do, those who canít teach.Ē

So I can understand how you would be not satisfied with the answers given to you by teachers. The pathetic state of my own school pushed me do seek knowledge on my own time.


Send me over one of these proofs, and let me see if it holds water. To post all the ones I know are false would bore lots of people here, unless yall want me to do it.

To provide you with proofs I would have to first eliminate what you perceive to be false in connection to the subject at hand so I have no problem as long as this thread remains in this section of the forum which provides more of a one on one enviroment.


Im alot like you, GTC. Im an ed major, but my learning takes place on my own time. I just love to read, and I cant get enough knowledge of truth. God has blessed me with patience to read, so i plan on using it and sharing that knowledge with others. One thing you wont catch me doing is leaving out info for the sake of an arguement. If I was to convince you with half the truth, your conversion is useless. Only God can "convince" you, and you will have to see that with your own eyes, not b/c of anything I said.

Actually Iím just a recent High School graduate who finds science an interesting subject and prefers to keep up to date with current theories and findings.

As for God, Iíll know when Iím dead.


Wanna start with Stanley Miller?

Looks like you already have.


for those who dont know, stanley miller tried an experiment to see if he could recreate the process that created the first life form. Basically, he gathered up what elements should have been existing during the early earth and thought that if meteors were hitting earth at the rate they assumed, perhaps this could form like, with such an explosion of heat. When they recreated this, they found that amino acids were formed, which everyone knows are the building blocks of life!!!! (my short version, theres more)http://http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jd...ogy/miller.html

Actually the electrical current was used to simulate lightning which they believed to be quite frequent in the early atmosphere.
Hereís the link you posted since it didnít format right

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html


WHAT THEY DIDNT TELL YOU:
Every true scientists knows that the vast MAJORITY of the amino acids formed during that expirement would kill any evolving life form. Not all amino acids form life, and only about 5%(this is debated up to 20%) of these acids were life forming amino acids.

Interesting can you provide any source on this? Since the link you posted didnít contain any information regarding your claims.


The Stanley Miller experiment remains an unproven theory.

Not at all since it showed that inorganic compounds can in fact create organic matter.


Bring on the next victim.

You not used to getting replies? ;)

DesiderioDomini9
Aug 19th 2005, 09:56 PM
Actually the electrical current was used to simulate lightning which they believed to be quite frequent in the early atmosphere.


Explosion=lightning....i just didnt specify. Ill be more careful next time to make sure I leave nothing out. Lets not play on words. My posts may get long.


As for God, Iíll know when Iím dead.
true, but IF the bible is correct, this would really suck. If you are honest you must at least admit to the possibility of the bible being true. If so, then finding out when ur dead is not a good thing.




Actually Iím just a recent High School graduate who finds science an interesting subject and prefers to keep up to date with current theories and findings.
my point is exactly this, i havent taken a whole lot of science classes either. I read and keep updated on things. I do the same with historical findings, i just like to read and be up to date. Thats how we are alike IMO.




So I can understand how you would be not satisfied with the answers given to you by teachers. The pathetic state of my own school pushed me do seek knowledge on my own time.


Well thing is, I didnt have an evolutionist in HS. My first one was in college, Dr. Elizabeth Heise of Univeristy of Texas @ Brownsville. She gave many answers, just few of them were "whole truths".




Interesting can you provide any source on this? Since the link you posted didnít contain any information regarding your claims.


yes i will. Its from "what is creation science" by Parker and Morris. You can find it at any christian book store. Also, just get the reports on it, and ask some questions. Look up the amino acids and see what they are.



Not at all since it showed that inorganic compounds can in fact create organic matter.


I agree, but the problem is that todays science professors are teaching that this is proof that life formed by chance. It is far from it. It is proof that its possible, which we already know. However, if given this same level of "possibility" can count as "proof" the bible would embarrass modern science. Read the books by Lee Strobel, and see what you think. It will blow you away. I've still never seen an answer to them, so if you find one let me know! "Case for Christ" "Case for a Creator" "Case for Faith" Case for faith should be last, as it seems to only apply to those who have accepted the first 2.



Bring on the next victim.

You not used to getting replies?

I did not mean you as a victim, rather the half truth now exposed.

GTC
Aug 20th 2005, 03:37 PM
Explosion=lightning....i just didnt specify. Ill be more careful next time to make sure I leave nothing out. Lets not play on words. My posts may get long.

I thought you had mixed the theory that meteorites had brought the amino acids to Earth with the experiment being discussed thatís all. I wasnít picking it apart yet.


true, but IF the bible is correct, this would really suck. If you are honest you must at least admit to the possibility of the bible being true. If so, then finding out when ur dead is not a good thing.

Well if Iím wrong Iím wrong.


my point is exactly this, i havent taken a whole lot of science classes either. I read and keep updated on things. I do the same with historical findings, i just like to read and be up to date. Thats how we are alike IMO.

I enjoy watching the History Channel myself, Iíd watch it more often if it wasnít always about WWII.


Well thing is, I didnt have an evolutionist in HS. My first one was in college, Dr. Elizabeth Heise of Univeristy of Texas @ Brownsville. She gave many answers, just few of them were "whole truths".

Hmm all my science teachers saw evolution as a standard theory, even the one who believed the moon landing was faked. Perhaps it has something to do with where I live. Religion is in the minority here and is supported by an aging generation.


yes i will. Its from "what is creation science" by Parker and Morris. You can find it at any christian book store. Also, just get the reports on it, and ask some questions. Look up the amino acids and see what they are.

Unfortunately my local library doesnít have that book. And as far as I know there are no Christian bookstores in my area. Can you provide an online source?


I agree, but the problem is that todays science professors are teaching that this is proof that life formed by chance. It is far from it. It is proof that its possible, which we already know. However, if given this same level of "possibility" can count as "proof" the bible would embarrass modern science.

I was wondering how you were going to compare what you think is the improbability of those first amino acids being created.

I can see why you donít understand the theories behind the formation of life on Earth. I donít recall ever looking up words as often as I have been while trying to research this subject. But hereís what Iíve got so far, itís interesting to note that it is creationist vs. evolution sites that provide the most information regarding the subject, although that information is still lacking in my opinion.

-The Miller-Urey experiment proved that inorganic material could create amino acids.
-In 1961 Joan Oro made a similar experiment and produced adenine.
-Later experiments produced other bases for DNA and RNA.
-RNA has the ability to duplicate itself.

Now back to your claim about the chances those first organic materials being formed. Although it was proven in the Miller-Urey experiment that organic material could be formed under those conditions it is not known how common this formation of organic material would be on Earth without making numbers up. To further complicate matters is the discovery of the Murchison meteorite in 1969 over Murchison Australia. This meteorite contains 92 different amino acids, only 19 of them are found on Earth. This discovery has shown that organic material could be formed in space in a manner we are unaware of. Perhaps the formation of these amino acids is more common than believed.


Read the books by Lee Strobel, and see what you think. It will blow you away. I've still never seen an answer to them, so if you find one let me know! "Case for Christ" "Case for a Creator" "Case for Faith" Case for faith should be last, as it seems to only apply to those who have accepted the first 2.

Iíve added them to my list of books to pick up from my local library. The three of them are around 300 pages so they should be a quick read. Once I get through them Iíll create a topic for each book for discussion.

DesiderioDomini9
Aug 21st 2005, 02:53 AM
if you are wrong, you will spend eternity in hell. id want to know if i was wrong. IF I AM WRONG, then nothing matters, and I lived a full life. I stay away from things that damage my body, ruin my mind, and cause friction between me and other decent people. I'd say i made a good choice.



Unfortunately my local library doesnít have that book. And as far as I know there are no Christian bookstores in my area. Can you provide an online source?



ive been looking, but i cant. perhaps a used bookstore? i know its not really a new book.

if you must choose, case for creation fits this discussion more. But case for christ will make you do one of 2 things: either get saved or quit tlaking about it. the proof is too overwelming.

GTC
Aug 21st 2005, 09:08 PM
if you are wrong, you will spend eternity in hell. id want to know if i was wrong. IF I AM WRONG, then nothing matters, and I lived a full life. I stay away from things that damage my body, ruin my mind, and cause friction between me and other decent people. I'd say i made a good choice.

If I am wrong to bad for me, but from what I see and understand there is no God, no afterlife, and no soul, and I will simply die as any other creature dies.

What makes your choice to stay away from potentially harmful substances any different from any other personís choice?


ive been looking, but i cant. perhaps a used bookstore? i know its not really a new book.

if you must choose, case for creation fits this discussion more. But case for christ will make you do one of 2 things: either get saved or quit tlaking about it. the proof is too overwelming.

Very well. I have already ordered the three books by Lee Strobel from my local library and I will open topics for discussion once I have finished them.

DesiderioDomini9
Aug 21st 2005, 09:54 PM
If I am wrong to bad for me, but from what I see and understand there is no God, no afterlife, and no soul, and I will simply die as any other creature dies.

What makes your choice to stay away from potentially harmful substances any different from any other personís choice?



actually there is plenty of it. The fact that there is an earth is proof of a God. Evolution is a joke, Darwin said it himself in these words:

"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existd, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great! Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explination lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." (origin of species)

There you have it. If the facts don't back up Darwin, then geology is wrong. Problem is, geology cannot be wrong here. If there are no transitional forms, then there are none. Geology cannot be expected to create something that is not found.

If evolution is not true, then what else is there? There is simply too much evidence for a creator to be ignored.

I'm not sure what you meant by how my choice to stay away from things that harm me is different than others. It's not, but my reason for staying away is different. Not that mine is more correct, but I stay away from sex, drugs, bad foods, because the bible tells me to. It just so happens that these things are very damaging to my body, so its smart for me to follow this wisdom.

FaithSeeker
Aug 22nd 2005, 12:43 AM
IF (and that's a big 'if') the speed rate of light is variable, it would only be in a miniscule amount, understanding the quality of light, thus your contention still doesn't account for the most distant galaxies being only 6,000 - 10,000 years old. Again, if they were, we would not be able to see them today, and in fact, wouldn't see them for another couple thousand (and some, a few million) years. Then you assume that you have complete understanding of the quality of light? On what authority do you base this absolute that light could only possibly, if at all, vary in its speed a very small amount?


Just to be clear FaithSeeker. Are you questioning how scientists arrived at the figure for the speed of light? Or are you suggesting that the speed of light is so fast that the 14 billion light-years of the visible universe is really just light traveling at such a rate of speed as to reach us in 5000 years?Has anyone ever attempted to test the speed of light over say 1km, maybe 10km or more?

I would suggest that the speed of light cannot be pushed into a box. No person can test how light reacts in all situations. Maybe the properties of space affect light allowing it to travel faster? We cannot know this until we have the technology to travel those vast distances and test it.

Testing the speed of something over a small amount of space and assuming it remains constant is foolish.

...

While writing up an example relating to this thread I done a quick search of the speed of light in space, didn't find what I was hoping for but I found this article:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/07/20/speed.of.light.ap/

Here is a quote form the article:
Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light -- supposedly an ironclad rule of nature -- can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances.While obviously this has to be taken on face value, the concept of the speed of light NOT being set in stone is certainly not a new one.

:)

FaithSeeker
Aug 22nd 2005, 12:48 AM
And another article:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/constant_changing_010815.html

GTC
Aug 22nd 2005, 02:19 AM
actually there is plenty of it. The fact that there is an earth is proof of a God. Evolution is a joke, Darwin said it himself in these words:

"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existd, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great! Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explination lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." (origin of species)

The Earths existence is not proof of a God, youíll need a better example.

The fact that you used a quote from a book written in 1859 only shows how weak your position is. Darwin says Geology because the sciences devoted to species study and their history had not yet developed. There was also a very limited fossil record at that time, Darwin says it himself in the quote you provided.


The explination lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." (origin of species)


There you have it. If the facts don't back up Darwin, then geology is wrong. Problem is, geology cannot be wrong here. If there are no transitional forms, then there are none. Geology cannot be expected to create something that is not found.

To bad for you your information is almost 150 years out of date.

There are plenty of transitional fossils and I would be more than happy to point them out to you.


If evolution is not true, then what else is there? There is simply too much evidence for a creator to be ignored.

Creationists rely on people not knowledgeable enough to be able to defend the attacks made on the theories of science. They have no evidence of their own and merely question what doesnít fit into their views.


I'm not sure what you meant by how my choice to stay away from things that harm me is different than others. It's not, but my reason for staying away is different. Not that mine is more correct, but I stay away from sex, drugs, bad foods, because the bible tells me to. It just so happens that these things are very damaging to my body, so its smart for me to follow this wisdom.

Most people use common sense when given the choice, but if somehow the Bible helped you stay away from such things then good for you.

Duane Morse
Aug 22nd 2005, 03:00 AM
Then you assume that you have complete understanding of the quality of light? On what authority do you base this absolute that light could only possibly, if at all, vary in its speed a very small amount?

Has anyone ever attempted to test the speed of light over say 1km, maybe 10km or more?

I would suggest that the speed of light cannot be pushed into a box. No person can test how light reacts in all situations. Maybe the properties of space affect light allowing it to travel faster? We cannot know this until we have the technology to travel those vast distances and test it.

Testing the speed of something over a small amount of space and assuming it remains constant is foolish.

...

While writing up an example relating to this thread I done a quick search of the speed of light in space, didn't find what I was hoping for but I found this article:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/07/20/speed.of.light.ap/

Here is a quote form the article:While obviously this has to be taken on face value, the concept of the speed of light NOT being set in stone is certainly not a new one.

:)
Actually, I am pretty sure that the velocity of light is said to be a constant in a vacuum. In a medium light slows, then resumes its original velocity upon exiting the medium. That is the reason for refraction in say, glass or water. The bending effect we observe is due to slowing.

Now, if intergalactic space is not a true and utter vacuum, light may travel faster between galaxies than it does inside the galaxy, and it may travel slower yet inside a solar system than in intergalactic space.

The only way to really test it would be to make the observations in the medium itself. Something we can not yet do outside the boundaries of our own Earth/Moon planetary system. At least, I have not heard of it being done between two spacecraft in deep space yet.

Gravity also bends light, so I wonder if gravity also has some physical properties of a medium, since light is said to have no rest mass.

GTC
Aug 22nd 2005, 03:13 AM
Has anyone ever attempted to test the speed of light over say 1km, maybe 10km or more?

The speed of light is verified every time NASA measures the distance from the Earth to the Moon.

Source:
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html


I would suggest that the speed of light cannot be pushed into a box. No person can test how light reacts in all situations. Maybe the properties of space affect light allowing it to travel faster? We cannot know this until we have the technology to travel those vast distances and test it.

And what in the vacuum of space would accelerate the speed of light? Simply changing the distance wonít change what has been observed as a constant.


Testing the speed of something over a small amount of space and assuming it remains constant is foolish.

See my link at the top of the page.


While writing up an example relating to this thread I done a quick search of the speed of light in space, didn't find what I was hoping for but I found this article:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/s...ed.of.light.ap/

Here is a quote form the article:

Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light -- supposedly an ironclad rule of nature -- can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances.

While obviously this has to be taken on face value, the concept of the speed of light NOT being set in stone is certainly not a new one.

Your first article is an example of scientific trickery.

A similar scientific study done recently explains why the light doesnít really move faster.

http://www.livescience.com/technology/050819_fastlight.html


This seeming paradox can be resolved because a pulse of light is actually made up of many separate frequency components, each of which moves at their own velocities. This is known as the pulseís phase velocity. If all the frequency components have the same phase velocity, then the overall pulse will also appear to move at that velocity.

However, if the components have different phase velocities, then the pulseís overall velocity will depend on the relationships between the velocities of the separate components. If the velocities differ, the pulse is said to be moving at the group velocity.

By tweaking the relationship between phase velocities, itís possible to adjust the group velocity and create the illusion that parts of the pulse are traveling faster than the speed of light.


And another article:

http://www.space.com/scienceastrono...ing_010815.html

Your secound article from Space.com suggests that the early universe somehow was based on different properties and called into question the majority of current scientific theories. Since there have been no follow-ups since 2001 I assume there was a flaw with the study and it was abandoned.

DesiderioDomini9
Aug 22nd 2005, 03:21 AM
please show me these transitional fossils

GTC
Aug 22nd 2005, 03:24 AM
please show me these transitional fossils

Sure but first Iíd like you to define what a transitional fossil is.

Not everyone has the same definition.

SpartanII
Aug 22nd 2005, 03:25 AM
Creationists rely on people not knowledgeable enough to be able to defend the attacks made on the theories of science. They have no evidence of their own and merely question what doesnít fit into their views.


There's plenty of evidence for creation, you just won't acknowledge it because you're too hellbent on discrediting creationism and brainwashed by your own belief in a theory.

What have you proved here? Nothing. What will you prove here? Nothing. You have faith in your theory, the rest of us will have faith in what we believe. Leave it be. :rolleyes:

DesiderioDomini9
Aug 22nd 2005, 03:35 AM
Sure but first Iíd like you to define what a transitional fossil is.

Not everyone has the same definition.

ummm be serious, a fossil that clearly shows evolution.

FaithSeeker
Aug 22nd 2005, 04:40 AM
The speed of light is verified every time NASA measures the distance from the Earth to the Moon.Actually, they use the same method used to determine the distance to the stars, I meant have they actually allowed light to travel that distance and determine how long it took to get there.

Can light be slowed down? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Light-slowing_experiments


In a sense, any light travelling through a medium other than a vacuum travels below c as a result of refraction. However, certain materials have an exceptionally high refractive index: in particular, the optical density of a Bose-Einstein condensate can be very high. In 1999, a team of scientists led by Lene Hau were able to slow the speed of a light beam to about 17 metres per second, and, in 2001, they were able to momentarily stop a beam.

In 2003, Mikhail Lukin, with scientists at Harvard University and the Lebedev Institute in Moscow, succeeded in completely halting light by directing it into a mass of hot rubidium gas, the atoms of which, in Lukin's words, behaved "like tiny mirrors", due to an interference pattern in two "control" beams.Let me ask two questions, unless of course there is some more trickery going on here!?!

1) If light can be slowed down then that proves its speed can be changed, how can you make the claim that it cannot also be increased? Just because we do not yet know how to increase it, does not mean it cannot be increased!!!

2) How do you know that outside of our galaxy is a vaccum?

If you can answer both of these questions, without using any assumptions at all, then I will believe what you are saying. The thing is you cant, I cant say my beliefs without having assumptions either, the truth is that we both have faith is something we cannot prove.

In relation to the articles I posted, it doesn't matter if they were completely accurate or not, the point I was trying to make is that not everyone believes that light speed is always constant and it isn't just christians that think this. Just as many scientific theories have changed in the past, so they will change in the future, this is a fact that even you cannot deny.

:)

Magnetic
Aug 22nd 2005, 02:28 PM
Let me ask two questions, unless of course there is some more trickery going on here!?!


1) If light can be slowed down then that proves its speed can be changed, how can you make the claim that it cannot also be increased? Just because we do not yet know how to increase it, does not mean it cannot be increased!!!

2) How do you know that outside of our galaxy is a vaccum?

If you can answer both of these questions, without using any assumptions at all, then I will believe what you are saying. The thing is you cant, I cant say my beliefs without having assumptions either, the truth is that we both have faith is something we cannot prove.

In relation to the articles I posted, it doesn't matter if they were completely accurate or not, the point I was trying to make is that not everyone believes that light speed is always constant and it isn't just christians that think this. Just as many scientific theories have changed in the past, so they will change in the future, this is a fact that even you cannot deny.

:)

Well, I guess that systematically ends this debate since it will be a while before we have a space craft that is out of our galactic influence. :rolleyes:

Until then, the observable light and what we have constantly seen (outside of artificial influence, such as the links provided) will remain as proof that light has a (slightly variable) constant, one that has been observed many times.

Even if, for some of the extremely distant galaxies, for its light to reach us now, it would have had to travel exponentially greater than the Speed of Light figure we know. :hmm:

GTC
Aug 22nd 2005, 03:06 PM
please show me these transitional fossils

The horse family.

http://img313.imageshack.us/img313/6562/500pxhorseevolutionpng7rq.gif

Horse skeleton.

http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/6326/horseskeletonen9zi.jpg

Pliohippus skeleton.

http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/8231/pliohippus8uq.jpg

DesiderioDomini9
Aug 22nd 2005, 07:44 PM
The horse family.

http://img313.imageshack.us/img313/...utionpng7rq.gif (http://img313.imageshack.us/img313/6562/500pxhorseevolutionpng7rq.gif)

Horse skeleton.

http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/...eletonen9zi.jpg (http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/6326/horseskeletonen9zi.jpg)

Pliohippus skeleton.

http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/...iohippus8uq.jpg
ok first off, i asked you to be serious. 2nd, there is no explination of any kind on these links, but ive read about it before, and its embarrassing.

The bones of 7 different "transitions" of these horses were found in Florida all in the same level of ROCK!!!! How could they have evolved if they all lived at the same time?
Also, in south america they found the modern horse buried underneath the so called "primitive" 3 toed horse.

Also look at the ribs. The "primitive" one has 15 pairs, then 18, then a higher one has 19, then back down to 18 with the modern. Does this make sense?


Too bad your evidence is 150 years old
i didnt claim it to be up to date. However, Darwin said that if evolution were true, there would be an amazing amount of transitional fossils found. We have 0. Every major scientist has admitted this. They just wont let it be taught because they know that to admit evolution is false is to admit there is a creator, and that is something they dont want to face.

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, and in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
- Richard Lewontin (evolutionist)

Mortal Man
Aug 22nd 2005, 09:10 PM
There's plenty of evidence for creation, you just won't acknowledge it because you're too hellbent on discrediting creationism and brainwashed by your own belief in a theory.





Other than arguments from ignorance or incredulity, what "evidence" can you cite? Stating that because we don't understand the complexity or origin of "X" that it MUST be due to "Y" (or God), resolves nothing whatsoever scientifically and, in the end, simply affirms that we STILL do not understand "X".

Other than the above or belief in a book written thousands of years ago by mortal men largely ignorant of their surroundings (through no fault of their own), what "evidence for creation" can you provide?

TIA

Mortal Man
Aug 22nd 2005, 09:30 PM
1) If light can be slowed down then that proves its speed can be changed, how can you make the claim that it cannot also be increased? Just because we do not yet know how to increase it, does not mean it cannot be increased!!!





The speed of (visible) light is well understood to be 186,000 miles per second and a near absolute constant precisely because we understand the sinusoidal nature of the alternating current generated by the nuclear fusion of the sun and other stars. An exponential increase in the speed of light would subsequently require an explanation of some (unknown and entirely different) atomic process that would likely not produce visible light in the first place. Keep in mind that it is safe to assume that Adam and Eve (and all life on earth) needed visible light, or "solar days", 6000 years ago (as I believe you are suggesting) in order to survive.

In short, if the speed of light was radically faster than we know it to be today, it wasn't generated by anything God said he made "in the beginning".

FaithSeeker
Aug 22nd 2005, 11:28 PM
Well, I guess that systematically ends this debate since it will be a while before we have a space craft that is out of our galactic influence. :rolleyes: Is this your way of saying that yes, we both believe in something that cannot be proven!?!


Until then, the observable light and what we have constantly seen (outside of artificial influence, such as the links provided) will remain as proof that light has a (slightly variable) constant, one that has been observed many times.

Even if, for some of the extremely distant galaxies, for its light to reach us now, it would have had to travel exponentially greater than the Speed of Light figure we know. :hmm: Again, on what do you base the absolute of this constant being slightly variable!?! If it can vary slightly, then there is no reason to assume it cannot vary in a large way. Did you ever consider that maybe the assumptions about how to determine the distance to galaxies may be off :hmm:. But I mean mans absolute ability to know everything without knowing everything means this could no be possible, why? It would call in to question all of mans other near absolute knowledge!!


The speed of (visible) light is well understood to be 186,000 miles per second and a near absolute constant precisely because we understand the sinusoidal nature of the alternating current generated by the nuclear fusion of the sun and other stars. An exponential increase in the speed of light would subsequently require an explanation of some (unknown and entirely different) atomic process that would likely not produce visible light in the first place. Keep in mind that it is safe to assume that Adam and Eve (and all life on earth) needed visible light, or "solar days", 6000 years ago (as I believe you are suggesting) in order to survive.

In short, if the speed of light was radically faster than we know it to be today, it wasn't generated by anything God said he made "in the beginning".The same things I have said to Magnetic apply to you, there are too many assumptions that you take for granted, you act as if the knowledge you have is absolutely correct!!

By the way, it is impossible to be near absolute, either something is absolute or it is not!! 99.99% is not absolute!!

Mortal Man
Aug 23rd 2005, 12:40 AM
The same things I have said to Magnetic apply to you, there are too many assumptions that you take for granted, you act as if the knowledge you have is absolutely correct!!

I'm not assuming anything at all. I'm trying to explain to you that science (for all the disdain you seem to hold for it) fully understands the operation of the source of visible light and, therefore, why light travels at the speed it does. This would be a good point for you to research alternating current, the light spectrum and the reasons we can only see some forms of the radiation from the sun. There are no assumptions unless someone is tricking us and the Christian God could, by nature, never, ever deceive or lie.

Of course, you may wish to argue that Satan leads all of science astray, but this is certainly a two-sided coin if you ever seek a cure for a sick child that is possible only because of science. Or is only some of science acceptable?

Again, we fully understand the speed of light and why it travels at this rate. The source generates visible light at a constant rate, without exception. Always. If you wish to play games with what man can do to slow down or "speed up" (an impossibility) the speed of light, the onus is on you to correlate such tricks (and rationality) with your creator.

Other than using the intelligence and math we know, what exactly am I assuming? That God doesn't want me to understand the obvious?




By the way, it is impossible to be near absolute, either something is absolute or it is not!! 99.99% is not absolute!!



Make no mistake; the speed is absolute. I included the "near" comment to accomodate what man has been able to do with light in artificial conditions that do not seem (unless you assume) to occur within the universe.

FaithSeeker
Aug 23rd 2005, 06:06 AM
I'm not assuming anything at all. I'm trying to explain to you that science (for all the disdain you seem to hold for it) fully understands the operation of the source of visible light and, therefore, why light travels at the speed it does. This would be a good point for you to research alternating current, the light spectrum and the reasons we can only see some forms of the radiation from the sun. There are no assumptions unless someone is tricking us and the Christian God could, by nature, never, ever deceive or lie.

Of course, you may wish to argue that Satan leads all of science astray, but this is certainly a two-sided coin if you ever seek a cure for a sick child that is possible only because of science. Or is only some of science acceptable?

Again, we fully understand the speed of light and why it travels at this rate. The source generates visible light at a constant rate, without exception. Always. If you wish to play games with what man can do to slow down or "speed up" (an impossibility) the speed of light, the onus is on you to correlate such tricks (and rationality) with your creator.

Other than using the intelligence and math we know, what exactly am I assuming? That God doesn't want me to understand the obvious?

Make no mistake; the speed is absolute. I included the "near" comment to accomodate what man has been able to do with light in artificial conditions that do not seem (unless you assume) to occur within the universe.I have no disdain for science and I am extremely grateful for the medical advances because of it, what I am suggesting is that science is not always correct and it has and does change, I accept that with current knowledge light speed appears to be constant, but that doesn't mean it is (which it could be, I definately don't know), that just means that man does not yet know of any way or reason for it to be different.

Magnetic
Aug 23rd 2005, 02:57 PM
Okay, this is becoming a "broken record". Opinions have been made. Our understanding of what science has given has been "laid on the table". It's getting us nowhere.

Bored now.

FaithSeeker
Aug 23rd 2005, 11:44 PM
Okay, this is becoming a "broken record". Opinions have been made. Our understanding of what science has given has been "laid on the table". It's getting us nowhere.

Bored now.:giveup:

I am sorry for ever thinking that men can be wrong, I am humbled by your immense knowledge...

Magnetic
Aug 24th 2005, 02:43 PM
:giveup:

I am sorry for ever thinking that men can be wrong, I am humbled by your immense knowledge...

Good! . . . . . . You should be!! :lol:

In all seriousness, FaithSeeker, I understand what you are saying. Men HAVE been wrong before. They thought the world was flat, that heavier than air flight was impossible, that the sound barrier couldn't be broken, etc. . . . And if someone eventually discovers that light can travel at "Hyper Speed of Light" in some areas of space, then I'll remember your words. Until then, under natural settings, the speed that light travels has been observed to be constant.

Besides the speed of light being constant in our galaxy alone, the Milky Way Galaxy is around 90,000 light years across. Realizing this, then taking that distance (the 90,000 light years) and stacking them one after the other towards another galaxy, say andromeda, you'll begin to understand the distances between galaxies, and how far said galaxies light would have to travel (say M31), to get here within 6,000 years (doing some rudamentary math) would mean that the light would have to travel roughly 368 times faster than the current Speed of Light. If someone else has better figures, then I'd be willing to 'bow' to them.

Nietzches_ghost
Aug 27th 2005, 06:44 AM
It indeed could be that what we beleive to be true in science is terrible wrong, because we were, say, tricked by the devil, or maybe we are just brains in a jar and our whole world is just some created illusion. But these arguments apply just as well to god as it does science. In the end you reach the conlusion that you simply cannot know for sure.

God's Advocate
Apr 29th 2007, 03:17 PM
Science is the explanation of God's work. It is the flawed human interpertation of God's holy world. We cannot fully understand it, we can only do our human best.

Brother_Fred
May 1st 2007, 12:28 AM
Regarding science vs. the bible, I have some problems with what my fellow Christians choose to believeÖ or not believe.

Letís use Noahís ark as an example: If scientific evidence proves that this event did not occur, most Christians would say that it is the work of the devil trying to deceive us. BUTÖ if science proved that this event DID happen, then the same Christians would stand behind the evidence as a platform to say, ďSee- itís really true, and was scientifically provenĒ.

In my humble opinion, this is hypocrisy. If science is reliable, then it should be taken as suchÖ all the time. If it is unreliable, then by the same token it should be ignoredÖ all the time. It would be wrong to only stand behind the findings that concur with your beliefs and reject everything else that does not.

Belief in God is based on faith, and faith aloneÖ regardless of what science proves or disproves. It is up to us as individuals to take it or leave it and either a) reap the rewards of our faith, or b) suffer the consequences for our lack of it.

Thatís just my 2 cents (if itís even worth that much).

Fred