Angels are Indian?? Does that mean only Hindu's go to heaven?

God outsourced his phone help center to Krishna?

sorry but LOL

69. Laurasaur ;p

fuck i love that show

spacemonket whyyyyyyyyy resurect hte thread lol

reow wat a hottie :rnr: hehehehehe

oh..my..goodness lol i was posting that as a joke!!
ROFL!!
hahahahah

Ug. I find your posts so hard to comprehend. So full of lies and trickery. It takes me hundreds of man-seconds to refute them.

However, luckily for you, I am a forgiving Arnifix. Say sorry, go away and I promise I’ll never bother you again. Actually, I’ll just settle for the going away part.

I'm sorry that you think its full of lies and trickery. I have no intention to trick. If you read each paragraph carefully, you will see that it actually makes sense, regardless how foreign to your way of thought.

My main points overall are:

1) Neither theory of origins is technically scientific; one is naturalistic, one is not.

2) In addition creationists believe that although instigated by supernatural means, the world has since run by natural processes.

3) Therefore, belief in any particular origins theory holds no sway over the effectiveness of a scientist in his scientific field ( eg electronics, study of genetics, designing cars, computers, rockets, medicines etc).

4) Because we cannot observe either theory, and neither is falsefiable, it comes down to the most likely of the two theories.

5) Assumptions have to be made when examining the evidence, as we cannot observe events that have happened in the past. Different assumptions applied will result in different interpretations of the evidence. Therefore one must be careful that one isn't using "assumed" evidence as evidence against the other theory.

6) There is no way a supernatural can be ruled out, although it can be brought into doubt if one accepts evolution as a given.

Before anyone new looks at these points and states a disgreement, make sure you have read my (including those under JayKays name) posts.

I'm sure there were other "main" points, but look at the time dangnamit.

I'm not making the holiday up either. Its not a cop out. The lengths of my posts should indicate that I'm not really one to ever just "give up". If this post is still going strong in a weeks time, you'll hear from me again  :bounce: Quite possibly that may be an incentive to keep quiet for some. O well, till next time.

[Holy crap I just realised I've done all todays posts under Laurs name.]

Again, you manage to insult the intelligence of the members of this forum.

In my opinion, based on the majority of posts posted so far on this forum (your initial posts included) the majority seem to believe in evolution because of a,b,c, or d or all four. The fact that most people don't even seem to be aware of the various evolutionary thought points to that fact. But I accept perhaps its unfair to make an assumption, so my apologies for any offence in this regard. I know the feeling all to well; my intelligence is insulted whenever people assume I believe in a young earth because I'd prefer to believe in a supernatural.

As translations occur, the story changes, dramatically.

Incorrect. The King James is still a very good translation and I stand by it, and contains exactly what the NIV does; one is merely a literal translation using 400 year old vocabulary, one with modern vocabulary. The problem with the older version is the same problem I have with trying to read a German version: its much harder to understand!  

I have a strange suspicion that if I say five scholars down, two with evolutionary biases and two with creationist biases and one control subject and set them to it, the evolutionary and creationist copies would come out vastly different.

I would agree - if their were significant assumptions involved. If the control subject was something testable and repeatable in the present, both sides would operate using the scientific method, and the results would be very similar. This does not apply to origins theory though, for obvious (and repeatedly stated) reasons.

No, it shouldn’t. ... The appeal previously quoted by Simon states, and I quote, “The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind.” This, in and of itself, points directly towards what I see as one of the core problems with creation science, and indeed some Christian attitudes.

Yes it should. Let me extend the sentence:  "...because it does not conform to the humanistic rules of Naturalism, thereby promoting the belief that a supernatural being created humankind". I'm not debating that they threw it out because the theory indicates that there is a supernatural; I am debating that the theory is any less scientific than evolution. Again, a naturalistic theory of origins is not inherently more scientific than a non-naturalistic theory of origins; none falls under the catergory of a scientific theory, as was clearly pointed out earlier on. And I did not misquote those evolutionists, although I'm sure they would hate to think their quotes are used by creationists.

The acceptance of “naturalism” or creation “science” would stymie the advancement of science.

First of all, whatever humans have done in the name of Christianity in the past cannot be automatically applied to the present! I am not one of those religious leaders of the past (and whether or not they were true Christians in the Biblical sense is not for me to judge). You just cannot equate anyone who calls themselves a Christian with anyone else who also calls himself Christian. Neither can you blame Christianity as the single reason behind the opposition to abortions, stem cell research etc. In any community, with or without a religion, there is going to be some form of accepted norm when it comes to a standard of behaviour, and these issues have merely brought up the question: "what is the norm"? Obviously you look forward to the day when Christian ideals have no influence on the norm. at which stage you will be legally allowed to have sex with your consenting dog, or sister, or grandmother if you so desire. Based on humanistic ideals, there is no real reason as to why these should be wrong.

If creation “science” had been allowed into American schools, it would have spread, and with it a new dark age of scientific repression would almost certainly have begun.

An amazing assumption; again you assume that believing in evolution gives you an edge when working with operational science. But the two are not dependant! But again, the amount of creation scientists (albeit a minority) who are improving our quality of life through their scientific genius proves this to be completely wrong. And it can only be your disbelief that there are such people that can lead you to make such a statement.

You have already said multiple times that multiple people believing something doesn’t increase it’s likelihood of being truth so what is the point in showing our fine ancestor a list of  “antievolutionist scientists”?

As stated above, it merely points out that your previous statement (that belief in creationism would bring about a dark age) is nonsense. Sure, if creationists were a majority, it wouldn't go anywhere to prove that it were true.

Operational science? Just say methodological “naturalism”.

Correct, creationists believe that the our world was set in motion by supernatural means, and made to run by itself. So creation scientists, in whatever their field, are on the same level as any other scientist (including Satan worshippers)- except on the theory as to our origins. Its good to see the penny has dropped.

So you see, the origins theory we hold to does nothing to affect our everyday working with science. How does evolution affect operational science? Eg, how does it help with designing a micro chip? How does it help with designing a car? It doesn't! The only way belief in evolution affects us today is in our philosophy towards life.

I seriously doubt anyone could mistake the fact that whenever I mention the term "Creationist" I refer to "young earth creationist". Everything I have argued so far has also been against the various streams of thought that have tried (and failed) to incorporate evolution with Genesis. But my apologies to anyone who may have been confused.

Your statement that “We evolved via the rules of naturalism” being the framework within which evolutionary scientists study is also flawed in the extreme. If I had to sum up the framework of modern science it would be “To make hypothesis, test these hypothesis’ and make assumptions about the nature of existence based on empirical evidence yielded by observing these test.” But that is merely my own interpretation.

Yes, but to repeat myself, we cannot create tests to falsify either creation or evolution. Read my above posts. )If all you can come up with is "yes but creationists are known for misquoting evolutionists" not only will I regard that as an extremely feeble excuse, but it will also show your inability to see why both theories are unfalsefiable). And if a hypothesis is unfalsefiable, it will forever remain a framework around which we endeavour to fit the evidence. Again, this is why neither can be considered scientific.

The advantage of this framework for scientific endeavour is that when using the framework it ignores the possibility of the supernatural, and only takes into account what can be observed and measured.

But we cannot observe or measure the theory of evolution, or the theory of young earch creationism!

This methodological approach ensures that the most logical, and reasonable theory that can be made, given the accuracy of the experiment, is made. Surprisingly, “creation science” (for the most part) can be tested and evaluated under this framework, though whether the results can stand up to outside inspection is another matter altogether.

I love you now arnifix, this is exactly the point I have been trying to stress, in all my posts! Yay yay! We agree on something! Both theories use emperical science to try and evaluate whether or not their theory is possible. And it comes down to which theory is more probable, based on the evidence.

Eg, we use empirical science for isotope measurements in rock samples. We can also measure the current rate of decay. That is where empirical science stops, and assumption based on your framework begins.

And I hope I’ve been constructive enough for you. Or should I say destructive. Well, it doesn’t really matter, because you’ll still be snide and arrogant, won’t you.

Actually, I do appreciate your effort this time around.

I think I have provided more than enough evidence of the credentials of the others who you have mentioned, or misquoted/misrepresented, in the cases of the prominent supporters of evolution.

I have misquoted no one, neither misrepresented: I clearly stated they were evolutionists, and presume that most did not intend for their statements to be used by anti evolutionists. But it does not negate the facts that they stated.

I have a suspicion that I am not the only one who is offended by your outstanding capacity for arrogance.

Yes I admit I can get rather stuck up when people put no effort into their argument and at the same time write off mine without working through the logic.[

In response to your post about the light speed issue (I’m out of order and it’s unprofessional, I know), I would make a few points.

Incidently I'm also out of order, and admitted it previously. I can assure you Humphreys credentials are not made up. The fact that Scandia distance themselves from his creationist veiws is an example of treatment commonly recieved by scientists who denounce evolution. But it in no way affected his work. He does hold awards from Scandia for contibutions made.

His theory is continually critiqued by both evolutionists and creation scientists alike, but holds up as well as any other evolutionary theories on cosmology, which are themselves constantly critiqued and changed. Obviously the theory is written off by evolutionists in general, as it doesn't entail the "accepted " assumptions.

Its so tall that it survived the great flood....

The age of the tree (if correct) still fits within the timeline assummed by creationists. Now to tacke arnifxes post. Argh

Read my reply post to dirty ape, re scientific/experimental method. I don't know where you got the idea that creationists don't use it.

Fine I'll supply the list of scientists etc. And point out the ones that have turned there backs on evolution because of their investigation, rather than because they were already Christians.

You have an amazing way of ignoring my lines of logic Simon, and moving on to completely new issues. Read through you explanation of your new form of dating, and see whether or not it really passes the test of being able to be used without some form of bias.

 And in response to your huge quote re court rulings again: A majority provides comfort in ones beliefs, not proof. To go back to the history lesson again, the fact that most people may or may not have believed the earth to be the centre of the solar system proved them nothing did it. Lets learn from their mistake.

I'd love to write more but Laur is getting increasingly pissed off with me (Im sure she's not the only one! :bounce: ), so till next time.

Where is his work published? Time? Scientific America? New Scientist?.

Read my response, as I haven't read his work on radiometric dating, I'm not prepared to defend him at this point. And don't think he's the only guy picking fault with the biases behind the methods. Incidently, I don't expect to find any creationist material in the above puplications, as the editors already have a decidely evolutionary bias, at the exclusion of any other theory. As Kenneth Hsu and other evolutionists have pointed out, this is a very dangerously closeminded approach.

What bias? Scientific method isnt bias, it is based on observed, recoreded and the observed again methods.?.

Dude! Your inability to follow logical steps is amazing to say the least! How many times do I have to repeat it: I agree with the Scientific method. But if you understand how the dating methods work, you will see that they involve assumptions that cannot be verified.

OK, lets work through it again. There are very accurate methods available for determining the present ratios or uranium-lead, thorium-lead, potassium-argon, and other isotope ratios. These can be tested, because they are in the present, therefore we all agree with the measurements because it passes the "scientific method" test. However, here is where the dating methods fall outside this catergory: there is, of course, no direct method for estimating the initial ratios of these isotopes in the rocks when they were first formed.We also have to assume that the rates of decay have been at a constant, which again is a huge assumption! PhD scientists accept these assumptions based on the belief that evolution is a given, not because they can prove these assumptions. Is it just me, or does it seem like I'm repeating myself?

It is agreed by most that Earth is 4.55 billion years old. Even if you account for a margin of error of 4billion years THEN EARTH IS STILL OLDER THAN what is described in genesis

Again, let me repeat myself There is comfort in a majority, but no proof. And on the topic, do you want me to give you a list of PhD scientists, professors in well reknowned universtities, and publishers of articles in respected scientific journals, who denounce evolution as a farce, and even hold the view that special creation is better supported by the evidence? Trust me, its a long long impressive list. Sure, its still a minority, but as I said before, being a minority doesn't mean your wrong: ask any Green, Act, Maori, NZ First supporter.

And a significant number of these guys have turned to Christianity because of the evidence, rather than already being Christians.

If you really can't debate the refutations I put up, and can merely fall back on your assumptions, its honestly not worth wasting your time. To be honest, the only guy giving me any sort of run for my money is Dirtyape, who I'm about to address now. It just goes to show that most people who believe in Evolution do so because: a) the general idea seems pretty ok b) most people believe it c) you'd rather believe it than believe that there is a supernatural d) you haven't bothered to investigate the arguments against it.

I don't have to disprove creation as a theory though, I can disprove its foundations.

Where is your examples of humans who are 850 years old?

I can go and get examples of how old the earth is. And its alot older than 4000 years.

Heh I'm getting somewhere now I feel. Its somewhat satisfying to see people retreat from their initial accusations without trying to defend themselves, and instead moving on to some other accusation. This is precisely why my posts are getting longer. I can keep defending the different issues, while everyone else seems to leave their original accusations and come up with new ones.

There is no "proof" for 850 year old people. I clearly stated it is an assumption, which you cannot disprove, and which is based on the possibility of special creation being true. Just as evolutionists state that they don't have proof as to how the first life forms were formed, they assume it happened because they assume evolution is true.

See my last post regarding the assumptions that need to be made regarding dating methods.

:bounce: Ha just as Im about to begin the Simpson's depiction of their version of creation is on. Frikin hilarious. Anyway here we go again.

Because creationism isn't a theory, no aspect of it is testable. it relates directly to the bible, a document supposedly inerrant. changing the creationist perspective actually requires yet another reinterpretation of the bible, which is already so maligned because of the many changes made to its interpretation (due to being unable to change the bible itself, because of its inerrancy).

But it IS a theory, just as evolution is. But your right, its not testable, just as as evolution is not testable - before you answer this paragraph, read on.

Right, lets clarify some things.Fragin' made a point about nothing being provable. Although this is technically true (eg as Spacemonkey I think suggested, we can't prove we don't just live in a Matrix style computer program, and as I pointed out we can't prove that the dinner we're eating isn't disguised shit-it could just be an illusion), I think we kinda took a turn down the wrong path. Scientific principles of operational science have been confirmed by the principles of the scientific method. (It brings us back to "the most probable" part of my previous epistles). However, "Origins" science  is a different matter altogether. People state evolution=science, and creation=religion because they confuse operational ("man-to-the-moon") science with origin theory.

To clear up this confusion, lets first clarify what we all (should) know as commonly accepted scientific theory. George Gaylord Simpson (in Science 43:769, 1964) stated that "it is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything...or at the very least, they are not science". Again, the Oxford Dictionary's definition of science is "A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed fact systematically classified and more less colligated by being brought under general laws...". I.e, for a theory to qualify as a scientific theory (let alone fact) it must be supported by events, processes, or properties which can be repeatedly observed, and the theory must be able to predict the outcome of future natural phenomena or laboratory experiments. Another limitation usually imposed on the definition of scientific theory is that the theory must be capable of falsification; i.e, it must be possible to concieve some experiment, the failure of which would disprove the theory.

It is by these processes that we land men on the moon, and cure disease etc. Unfortunately, neither the concept  of evolution or creation fall into the catergory of scientific theory, because we cannot observe the events, recreate the events, nor create an experiment that might disprove either theory. Before anyone ignorant enough out there to think that that evolution can fall under the catergory of scientific theory tries to reply, let me quote you Theodore Dobzhansky, a far more vehement defender of evolution than any of you: "These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversable. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved" (American Scientist 45:388). He went further to categorically state that "evolution has not been witnessed by human observers". (So no evolving penguins, or foxes, as I stated previously).

And another even better quote, by L. Harrison Matthews, in his introduction to the 1971 publication of Darwins Origin of Species: "Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof". Evolutionist N. Macbeth in American Biology Teacher (Nov 1976) p496 flatly stated that "Darwinism is not science". LC Birch and PR Ehrlich in Nature 214:349  state that the theory of evolution "is 'outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways to test it". This applies to the theory of special creation: outside of empirical science, but not necessarily false because it can't be tested.

So I'm afraid you got your sentence around the wrong way Blackheart: Because Evolution/Creation aren't testable, they aren't scientific theory. One more for good measure,  just to make it very clear: Evolution theorist C.Leon Harris stated that the neo-darwinsm is based on axioms (concepts that can be neither proved nor tested), and then said: "If the neo-Darwinian theory is axiomatic, it is not valid for creationists to demand proof of the axioms, and it is not valid for evolutionists to dismiss special creation as unproved, so long as it is stated as an axiom" (Perspectives in Biology and Medicine pg 183. ) Which is exactly what I've been saying all along.

Everyone got that clear now? Thank you.  :bounce:  

So we see, both ideas are merely just that: ideas. But proponents of both use the evidence available to us to back up their particular ideas.

Evolution conforms to the "rules" of naturalism, as I stated previously: that only natural forces can explain our origins. Creationism is no less scientific , or closeminded for believing that the evidence points to a supernatural "instigator", who created the scientific laws and processes to continue without supernatural involvement. In fact, evolutionists have criticised the common media for their treatment of evolution as fact. Two prominent scientists Erhlich and Holm (Science 137:655) wrote:"It has become fashionable to regard modern evolutionary theory as the only possible explanation of these patterns rather than just hte best explanation that has been developed so far...Perpetuation of today's theory as dogma will not encourage progress toward more satisfactory explanations of observed phenomena".

And to emphasize my point that the evolution theory arose during a time (including the present) which provides a strong bias towards a theory that excludes a supernatural: Kenneth Hsu, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 56(5): 729-730 (1986) although not a creationist stated after reading Darwin's The Origin of Species  that "I agree...that Darwinism contains "wicked lies"; it is not a "natural law" formulated on the basis of factual evidence but a dogma, reflecting the dominating social philosophy of the last century".

I love the statements made by respected Swedish Biologist Soren Lovtrup, a totally committed evolutionist, who rejects the current neo-darwinian theory of evolution. In his book (The Refutation of a Myth (1987) he states: "...nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But ths is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in peculiar "Darwinian" vocabulary-"adaptation" " selection pressure" "natural selection" etc-thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation  of natural events. They do not [as I stated in previous posts] and the sooner that this is discovered, the sooner we shall be able to make real progress in our understanding of evolution. I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science".

As i have mentioned previously, creationists do not deny "survival of the fittest" or "natural selection", but merely (as Lovtrup states above) that evolution cannot be explained by these means - it requires much more.

Also at this stage I would like to point out that NEW microscopic forms of life are being discovered daily at an astounding rate, the idea that no new genetic code is developing can only be supported by a new earth beleiver. No one knows the timeline that this sort of process takes to occur it could well be 100,000's of years, we have only been able to identify genetic material like this for a decade or two.

New microscopic life forms being found prove what? No one is claiming that they have evolved recently. See above statements where evolutionists claim we will never see evolution at work due to the amount of time it needs. Therefore there is no evidence of genetic code being developed, we do not and will not see it happen, and the excuse (convenient is it not) is that it takes to long for us to witness it. But evolution hangs on this very thread! Time and time again defenders of evolution will not believe me that we have no examples of new genetic code developing, and are incredulised firstly when they cannot give me an example, and secondly, when they read the statements by various evolutionists that this is the case, and that we can't expect to find any. So you see, it is assumed that increase in genetic information is possible. What a huge assumption to make!