Interesting article. It's amazing how far some
people will stretch their belief on such far reaching hypotheses rather
than to take in the evidence right in front of their eyes - the universe
had a beginning point and a creator. [Post #25]
And what evidence do you use to reach that
conclusion? You’ve found some new particle, every one of which is
stamped with “Made by Jehovah. 4004 BC”? ------------> There is no where in scripture that says God created the universe on a specific date.
Or maybe you use the Bible? A researcher in the study of Islam – Patricia Crone – in the book Why I Am Not a Muslim – highly recommended – makes the following observation:
It is a peculiar habit of God’s that when he
wishes to reveal himself to mankind, he will communicate only with a
single person. The rest of mankind must learn the truth from that person
and thus purchase their knowledge of the divine at the cost of
subordination to another human being …. [pg 131]
--------> Thanks but he's talking about being a Muslim & the Quran
Far more plausible are idiosyncratic delusions on
the part of various individuals. And, on the same topic, Thomas Paine
had been quoted as well:
But admitting for the sake of a case, that
something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any
other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to
a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on,
it ceases to be revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the
first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it. [pg 130]
So many other scientists of the past with a greater
intellect (and more wisdom) that most scientists today could so easily
see the connection between creation and the Creator but I guess many
today choose to be blind.
I assert that there is no physical basis for faith. Some of the
scientists of the past had great intellects but when they attributed
nature to God they hindered rather than provided understanding. What
they did was put God in the gaps of their personal understanding of
nature. Then, lo and behold, someone finds how nature really works and
God gets pushed out. -------------> Many of the great scientists of the past were open-minded enough to see the interconnectedness of God to nature. Sadly many of today's scientists are blinded by their anti-God bias - some because of a personal dislike for religion in general and others out of fear of being ostracized by others.
Scientists of today are not blind. They ask questions and probe
for answers. If you want to poke at them you should consider that in
many cases certain of their conclusions have come from mathematical
--------> Yes, however if those answers begin to point towards a Creator or against the belief system of evolution then those answers are discarded and new answers are sought.
When I was in graduate school and the Prof would smear
equations on the board then make his assertions, I would get up and
circle points in his results and say; "Prove it". ----------> That's a good thing. More scientists need to stand up to evolution and say the same thing. But too many are scared to do so for fear of losing their jobs, funding, or credibility.
There is nowhere in scripture that says God created the universe on a specific date. [Post #28]
The specific date was a jest, but, as you no doubt know, the general age is a deadly serious issue and belief. In which case one might reasonably ask, where did over 400 “American Protestant pastors” out of a 1000 surveyed get that idea, if not from scripture? Pulled it out of their nether regions?
NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Pastors overwhelmingly believe that God did not use evolution to create humans and think Adam and Eve were literal people, according to a recent survey by LifeWay Research.
The survey of 1,000 American Protestant pastors also found that ministers are almost evenly split on whether the earth is thousands of years old.
In response to the statement, "I believe the earth is approximately 6,000 years old," 34 percent of pastors strongly disagree. However, 30 percent strongly agree. Nine percent somewhat disagree, and 16 percent somewhat agree.
Thanks but he's talking about being a Muslim & the Quran[Post #28]
How many people observed Moses receiving the tablets from Jehovah? Saw him part the Red Sea? Although it seems even the evidence for him as a real historical character to begin with apart from any revelations or supernatural powers is flimsy at best. Or, how about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon? Seems that such supposed revelations have played a role in various Abrahamic religions for a great many supposed individuals from Abraham with Isaac to Moses to Jesus to Muhammad to Joseph Smith.
it's really hard to believe that it's all "hear-say" that is able to manipulate gullible people.
So, of the 1000 pastors in the previously mentioned survey, which are the gullible ones? And how about all of their parishioners? Can’t see that you can reasonably argue that none of them are.
Many of the great scientists of the past were open-minded enough to see the interconnectedness of God to nature.
What you think is open-mindedness is shoving God in the gaps of their understanding.
anti-God bias - some because of a personal dislike for religion in general
What does religion have to do with God? Religion is one or two persons' religious experience past on to others who have not had a religious experience.
however if those answers begin to point towards a Creator or against the belief system of evolution then those answers are discarded and new answers are sought.
No such thing happens. If it were possible to test and find God; it would have happened long ago. The physical and spiritual universe are separate. If that separation were not true, then there would be no need for faith.
More scientists need to stand up to evolution and say the same thing. But too many are scared to do so for fear of losing their jobs, funding, or credibility.
What part of evolution is not provable? Because you reject evolution in an irrational manner does not mean that it is not proven many times over. Funny point here is that evolution doesn't scare me, you do.
----------> This probably comes from the Biblical chronology done in the 17th century by James Ussher. But again, there is no date in the Bible which says that creation began in year X. However there are many scientific evidences which do point towards a young earth & young universe.
------------> When you compare the historical accuracy and consistency of the Bible with any other historical document (Quran or Book of Mormon for example), you will see that they are worlds apart in terms of accuracy, consistency, and reliability. Can every single sentence be backed up and proven without any doubt? No. Is there support for most of it? Yes, in varying degrees.
---------------> Like I said, it's probably based on Ussher's chronology without much personal study on the matter.
No such thing happens.
Then you may need to read some more. Often times logical assumptions are tossed out because they lead to something that is contrary to the accepted evolutionary model. If radiometric dating on something comes back with a younger date than expected, then it's tossed out since it "obviously" can't be that young. More dating and adjustments in assumptions continue until the results fall in line with the accepted evolutionary model.
What part of evolution is not provable? -----> tell me what part is? The biggest evidence AGAINST evolution is the fossil record. If evolution were true then the fossil record would have overwhelming numbers of examples of transitional fossils and intermediate forms. With all the millions of fossils already discovered and on display surely we'd be able to find some transitional forms. But the amazing lack of those points exactly to special creation as described in the Bible.
examples of transitional fossils and intermediate forms.
How many transitional species do you think it takes; three, two, one? What do you want to see; half man half bear? Don't be stupid. It may not take any transitions at all. All it takes is a population divided then allowed to be selected by the environment. It doesn't take any more than three or four generations of the population to become non-viable with the population left on the other side of the ridge.
The fossil record is the best proof of evolution. Each layer of rock beneath your feet speaks of species going extinct and new species surviving in new environments.
You really need to read about evolution before you attack it. I believe that the saying is, "know your enemies and know yourself" - Sun Tsu. Perhaps one from Pogo, "We have met the enemy and they is us".
The fossil record is the best proof of creation. Each layer of rock beneath your feet speaks of species sudden arrival as fully formed and functioning organisms and these species being able to adapt to new environments within their God-given genetic constraints.There, that's more accurate
Your highlights reflect the creationists attitude toward science; any time you don't understand something put God in the gaps. You should read "The Ancestor's Tail" by Dawkins. In it you will find the science and nothing of his personal anti religious attitude. You should read it but you will not. You are stuck in an intellectual black hole and have no way out.
And yes, you do have Archaeopteryx - a fossil of a bird, not a bird/dinosaur intermediate form.
Really? How are you able to reject it as an intermediate form (transitional)?
"Archaeopteryx had fully-formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modern woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the down stroke of the wings. Its brain was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status—a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves. Finally, Archaeopteryx skeletons had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This indicates the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac, i.e., at least two of the five sacs present in modern birds. This in turn indicates that the unique avian lung design was already present in what most evolutionists claim is the earliest bird."
Do you accept that chimpanzees are your own personal proof that humans/chimps had a common ancestor millions of years ago? -------> No, we have no evidence of that.
Your highlights reflect the creationists attitude toward science; any time you don't understand something put God in the gaps.
Yet when evolutionists come across something they can't explain, a gap or an inconsistency they claim "chance", "mutuation", "punctuated equilibrium", or any other number of unknown & yet to be discovered processes. It takes far more faith to believe in evolution than creation.
And we're not putting God in the gaps of creation. We are taking the facts as they are & applying them to really the only two available theories - evolution & creation. Which model to the facts best fit? What makes the best logic. And here creation wins hands down.