[color:"green"]Yes!!![/color] <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

WAT, even this ridiculous "low blow" is not worth a try by anyone, much less such an intelligent and erudite person as yourself. "Let's attack instead of addressing the issue." Precisely what you, in a typical "elitist" mentality are using to denigrate those who believe differently than you do, whether it is about existance of God or that the Evolutionary Model for "Origins" might NOT be as you faithfully accept it to be. So let me put it to you as succinctly and honestly as I know how.....IF not evolution, then what WAS the cause?

You DO know that sort of question IS the basis for forming an hypotheis, right? (hmmm...very sarcastic of me, so I offer you my apology in advance.)


WAT, it has nothing to do with decay rates. God established the physical realities and laws so that things WILL work. I personally don't give a hoot if you want to believe that decay rates are your own evolutionary "holy grail" or not.

The "connection" that you WON'T (not can't) make is that there IS a God and that Jesus Christ IS God and was the one who did that active creating of the universe in concert with the Father and the Holy Spirit. ONE more time, WAT, let me try to "clarify" the "connection" for you.

IF Jesus Christ IS who he said he was, then you can search the trunk, or the tail, or the leg, of the "entire elephant", as a blind man, and attempt to postulate hypothesis about what the TOTAL elephant "must" look like based upon your limited sense and without the ability to step back and SEE the entire entire animal. Perhaps given enough time you will work your way around the entire elephant, formulating and discarding your hypthesis as "new information" becomes available and you are eventually able to arrive at "near reasonable" description of the entire animal. But now you will be faced with other questions like "how did the elephant get here?" "Why is the elephant here?" Etc. You are little closer to the "entire truth" or "complete understanding." You may have achieved some "new knowledge" (the truth was always there, it's just that humans are "slow learners" and limited in our own capacities by our own biochemistry and by physical facts such as "time" moving in one direction only.) But you still are just working on a "leg" instead of the "tail" that you first grabbed onto.


Very elitist of you WAT. It's plain drivel and poppycock, and either you know it and are a willing participant, or you need to stop and examine what you are saying, in the spirit of being "open and honest."

WAT, there are TWO, and only TWO "models of origins." Neither one of the two models has been proven "scientifically" and most likely never will be because there are some fundamental questions that appear to beyond our ability to "know" and fall into the realm of "we can only speculate."

But, you are becoming, or "digging in your unproven evolutionary heels," that it is "more and more clear to me as this discussion continues - teaching creationism or ID in our schools as "science" is tantamont to lying to our children."

Rubbish. Your premise is based upon a falsehood itself. You elevate "no God" and "evolution" to the level of "absolute proven FACT." No such condition exists and you know it. No, you are scared to death that "opposing possibilities" might actually get "equal airing" and that people can then begin to research for themselves and make decisions about one model versus the other model. WHY are so scared? It has NOTHING to do with the age old atheist position that the "constitution" forbids teaching anything about God, or that might even mention God, because of "separation of church and state provisions." First, no such ban exists. ONLY the ban against the govenrnement setting up ONE particular religion as the "recognized" and "only" "National Religion" (ala the Church of England) exists. But in the very same breath, the Constitution ALSO very carefully and plainly states that the government shall make NO law prohibiting the FREE exercise of religion. It does NOT limit that to, or exclude it from, school, public buildings, courtrooms, congress, etc. It ASSUMES and GRANTS the right to each citizen that they can "say whatever they like" and "evaluate whatever they like" and can "form their own opinions for themselves" WITHOUT the "State" telling them that they cannot have the information to begin with. With the great "hoop-de-doo" that always arises over "Censorship" in order to give the "Right" to anyone like Maplethorpe to demean and denigrate Christ and Christians, it's most interesting that those same "crusaders" for find it perfectly "okay" to apply "Censorship" to anything related in any way to God.

WAT, are you really telling us that you are defining yourself more and more as an "intolerant extremist?"

WAT, Evolution and Creation are both UNPROVEN models of origins. Both are equally valid "models," complete with "hypothesis" that support each model (even if others in the "other camp" might not "like" those hypothesis or interpretations of the "same data.")

For you to "forbid" the teaching of Creation as a "model" is the height of elitist hubris. YOU, along with others fostering this notion, have decided that atheism and "no god" is the "only true god" for everyone. Go back to the Scopes trial sometime and examine the "facts" that were presented to "prove" evolution and get "creation" kicked out of the classroom. You might be surprised at how much false science and actual deceipt was used to "prove" the reality of evolution and that it was "proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

WAT, let me try to make it simple. I, and other Christians, believe in an Almighty and Omnipotent God. He CAN do anything that He chooses to do. He CAN "step outside" the physical laws that HE established anytime He chooses to do so. He CAN heal the lame instantly. He CAN give sight to the blind instantly. He can bring dead people back to life. He CAN end this creation of His anytime He chooses. He CAN perform what we call "miracles" anytime He chooses. What He "can't do" is to lie. He tells us the truth, but He does NOT force us to believe Him or to accept the truth. He will allow us (because He gave us that capacity when He gave us the free will to make choices and to love Him or reject Him) to grope around the "elephant" all day long if it makes us "happy." God will NOT force anyone to accept Jesus Christ. BUT, truth is truth, whether it is in the "scientific realm ala flat vs. round earth" or in the spritual realm.

The "historicty" and "accuracy" of the Bible has been proven beyond any reasonable discussion and I could duplicate that "proof" for you right here if I thought it would do any good to do so. The "reality and truth" of the existance of Jesus Christ as a REAL historical person has been proven beyond all "reasonable doubt," and I could go through all that "trial evidence" again, if I thought it would do any good.

What you are arguing is to "not let the truth get in the way of the facts." You want to predetermine what the "truth" is, and then bend the facts to accomodate "your chosen truth." It's a very common "human" thing to do. Even Christians try to walk that path, "picking and choosing" which of God's commands "apply to them and which don't." The problem with that sort of thinking is that it doesn't matter what WE want to believe, it only matters what the TRUTH really is, and it is our SOVEREIGN GOD who determines that, not we His servants or created beings.

It is Jesus Christ, and the claims made BY Him and about Him that ARE the fundamental heart of the question. IF Jesus Christ IS who He said he was, THEN what HE said is [/i]TRUTH[/i], regardless of our own personal feelings or desire to argue a "contrary truth."

WAT, this IS that simple. It IS a simple "IF-THEN" statement of FACT, "cause and effect."

Christianity and Judaism are the ONLY two religions that "demand" everything to have been created by God (although you might be able to toss Islam into that mix also). Christianity and Judaism "part company" on the issue of the Messiah. Christianity rises and falls on Jesus Christ and on nothing else. EITHER Jesus Christ WAS and IS who he said He was, either Jesus Christ DID die and WAS raised from the dead, OR all of Christianity is a sham and a fraud.

Argue isotopic decay rates all you want. Argue the various fossils and what they might mean all you want. Argue "young earth, middle earth, old earth" all you want (where ARE those hobbits when you need them?). Argue dating methods based on the assumption that all things today are the exact same way that they have always been. It won't make a hill of difference since NEITHER model of origins can be duplicated and proven. They both rest squarely on the shoulders of FAITH, not science or religion.

It is interesting to note, however, that it seems like the only ones willing to admit that their "position" is based upon "faith" and not "proven, duplicatable, fact" are those in the "Creation" camp. "Faith" (of any kind) seems to be anathema to those who are predisposed to accept that ONLY evolution can be how we all got here.

To quote a "sage," let me just conclude with his closed minded opinion of the whole "origins" topic: [color:"red"]"To foist this folly upon our children - and their own - shows the depths to which some people will go to protect their turf. Very sad and very scary indeed.
"[/color]

I concur.

What about the 'roos in Australia?

Here's an interesting article in today's (5/15/05) Washington Post:
Doubting Rationalist: 'Intelligent Design' Proponent Phillip Johnson, and How He Came to Be
This offers a different perspective on what my understanding of ID was. I was wrong. My perspective had been swayed, I believe, by Creationists and "Young Earth Creationists" (YECs) who seem to be trying to ride the coat tails of ID in an attempt to keep breathing life into their gasping agenda. Creation Science is dead. ID is a compromise for them.

This doesn't mean I am ready to jump on the ID band wagon - far from it.

Johnson (not a scientist, but a legal expert) believes the "old earth" conclusion and acknowledges the fossil record. He's not trying to vary isotopic decay rates. The earth is not only 6000 years old. He is not a YEC supporter - he's contradicting their agenda. Thus, in effect, ID is a nail in the coffin of Creation Science. That Creation Scientists are embracing it is hypocritical.

Johnson wants science to at least look for evidence of ID - whatever that evidence could be. Seems to me that science IS looking for evidence of ID - along with evidence of anything else out there that furthers knowledge. The best quote in the article: "If Einstein supplants Newton, that's the joy of science."

So I'm willing to separate ID from Creation Science and the 6000 year old earth. That's a loser. (How DID those 'roos get from the Ark to Australia?) The ID proponents would be well served to cut loose the Creation "Scientists" who are grasping for ANY credibility they can find, attaching themselves to ID, discrediting ID and turning off most folks from taking a closer look at it. I don't mean to suggest that folks like me will buy into it, but it's not as dishonest as the YECs.

WAT

Edit: For the record, I posted this before seeing FH's diatribe above.

Weaver,

Bless you for trying!!! I smile and shake my head!

And 2long, this is one of the funniest things I've read...

" I will never address the 2uestion of who Jesus is/was. It's not relevant 2 the subject, whether Jesus is relevant 2 me or not. Even if Jesus were ON MARS, how he got there isn't my area, so I wouldn't be publishing papers about it."

I know what you mean about nutballs...you guys be careful out there! Some people are so extreme in their beliefs it makes them crazy to be questioned!

Indeed! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

WAT

Who exactly are these nutballs? If we are going to sling mud instead of addressing the issues, can we please identify our targets so we are all clear on who the nuts are?

Mel - I'm a nut, you have even said so yourself. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

2long's a nut, MM's a nut, FH's a nut, too. Anyone still debating on this thread is a nut. We can't see that there are some perpetual arguments out there and we're arrogant to suspect we might sway them.

WAT

OK, I do try to steer clear of these discussions but I will state my position. I believe that while 'facts' regarding creation and the nature of things have disputable veracity or interpretation, both the rationalist and theist view most known facts as supporting their creed. Also both rationalist and theist use faith to fill in the gaps where 'facts' do not add up.

Rationalists lean on either unproven or unprovable theories, that one day mankind will surely prove or refine while theists will lean on their creator God to one day reveal the nature of all things to them, maybe in glory.

A Christian with a working faith can hardly conceive of a person denying God's existence nor his fingerprints all over creation, who would rely instead on the flawed 'theory of everything'.

At the same time a rationalist can't possibly conceive of a person not being satisfied with the certain hope that mathematical extemporizations of mortal scholars wil lone day 'disprove' ID or creation theory, relaying instead on a taciturn God.

As for me until I see a credible , supported mathematical or physical explaination how Butterflies evolved their miraculous mechanical metamorphosis AND why they are so beautiful when they need not be for example I will turn to my God with my hope and faith in filling the gaps.

yes, I have to admit, WAT, you are one of my favorite nuts! But are you an "extremist" nut?? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I'm not sure what you mean by "extremist" nut, Mel. I've done some pretty scary things - in hindsight - on a small boat in a big ocean to have fun. Many would reasonably call that "extremist."

But philosophically, no. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Some obviously differ with that assertion. Oh well.

FWIW, I don't think it's anybody's business, but since FH is convinced I'm an athiest, I'm moved to respond to that right now. I'm not sure what I am. The closest thing I've been able to identify with as my "faith" - although I hesitate to use that word, it doesn't fit well - is Jeffersonian deism. My God is not autocratic. He/she/it may have given the universe a push start at the beginning of time, but since has tended to other things of which I cannot conceive. This is very personal and I will not discuss it further.

WAT

Anyone still debating on this thread is a nut.

sometimes we feel like a nut
sometimes we don't

I once spent a lovely spring watching a pair of north american blue birds build a nest and hatch their young...

I could never doubt the existance of a higher being after watching that lovely moment in time unfold...

how it all came to be is of so little relevance to me....

ark^^ who moslty feels LIKE a nut..which is NOT the same as being NUTS.........no matter what melody says about me

Well WAT, I don't think you, or anyone else, on this thread is a "nut" or an "extremist." I was responding to CSue's assertion. "Extremist" is a very subjective label that has no meaning because it changes from person to person. Your idea of extreme is contingent on your world view, but it might not be the next guy's idea of extreme. One man's "extreme" is another man's norm.

Calling someone an "extremist" or a "nutball" is usually the act of a defensive person who has researched nothing, knows nothing and has nothing better to contribute than ad hominem attacks. [because they have no facts] Hopefully, we can do better than name calling on this very informative thread. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading Mortarman's, your's, 2Long's, BobPure's and dimpsasawa's posts. This is one the best threads I have ever read on this forum. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I got yore number, missy! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

One man's "extreme" is another man's norm.
One man's ceiling is another man's floor.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

WAT

FH--However, I don't really have a 'dog in this fight.' I've been involved in "Evolution/Creation" discussions before and they can be "fun" and toss out tons of information, none of which is "relevant" in the long run. That's why I have said that I am trying to resist getting involved, or too involved, in the discussion.

I agree with you. I rarely get in involved with the details, as I did in this instance. There are too many things that I don’t know to argue details effectively. To me the bigger question is: do you get your conclusions from a scientific perspective or something else? If it is something else—such as the Bible, I have no problem with this. What I have a problem with is presenting something as ‘scientific’ when it is not.

FH--I found your cited article fascinating and also very "telling" about the bias of the author.

Actually, I read very little of it, as the details are beyond my knowledge. But this is moot, in my perspective. The only issue to me here is: is it science or is it not. Whether science has the right answer is a completely different issue.

FH--To "siphon off" all material that could give anything other than a "present day" dating on the lava sample from Mount St. Helens negates the "assumption" by which most rocks are dated. That assumption is that we don't know when they were formed so we can't "manipulate" the samples to arrive at a "known" date. We take the sample "as is" and let the test(s) speak. The value of a known "young" sample is just to show that you have to be careful is "assigning" long dates to unknown samples simply because we were NOT present when they formed and base our conclusions on the "decay rates" and the "ratios" that may NOT be accurate.

Here I won’t look up and present the details of the scientific rebuttal to this as you can do this just as well as I can. In brief, multiple dating methods (including some that are not radiometric) are used in practice on a particular sample to ascertain its age. Using proper test protocols gives remarkably consistent results. However, if you are interested in the details you may want to glance through the website:

“The American Scientific Affiliation
Science in Christian Perspective
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective”

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

That presents the abstract:

“This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.”

There is also a section at the bottom titled:

“APPENDIX: Common Misconceptions Regarding Radiometric Dating Methods

There are a number of misconceptions that seem especially prevalent among Christians. Most of these topics are covered in the above discussion, but they are reviewed briefly here for clarity.”

In which they specifically mention the issue at hand:

“14. A young-Earth research group reported that they sent a rock erupted in 1980 from Mount Saint Helens volcano to a dating lab and got back a potassium-argon age of several million years. This shows we should not trust radiometric dating.

There are indeed ways to "trick" radiometric dating if a single dating method is improperly used on a sample. Anyone can move the hands on a clock and get the wrong time. Likewise, people actively looking for incorrect radiometric dates can in fact get them. Geologists have known for over forty years that the potassium-argon method cannot be used on rocks only twenty to thirty years old. Publicizing this incorrect age as a completely new finding was inappropriate. The reasons are discussed in the Potassium-Argon Dating section above. Be assured that multiple dating methods used together on igneous rocks are almost always correct unless the sample is too difficult to date due to factors such as metamorphism or a large fraction of xenoliths.”

And also:

“19. Only atheists and liberals are involved in radiometric dating.

The fact is that there are a number of Bible-believing Christians who are involved in radiometric dating, and who can see its validity firsthand. A great number of other Christians are firmly convinced that radiometric dating shows evidence that God created the Earth billions, not thousands, of years ago.”

------

FH--Evolution and Creation are both UNPROVEN models of origins. Both are equally valid "models," complete with "hypothesis" that support each model (even if others in the "other camp" might not "like" those hypothesis or interpretations of the "same data.")

A few comments here;

1) Science does not have a working model as to the origin of life. There is no scientific theory of abiogenesis, nor do I believe there is even a abiogenesis hypothesis.

2) I’m not certain what you mean by “unproven”. The word “proven”, in less in the case of 'proven incorrect' is almost never used in scientific journal papers (although ‘disprove’ is often used). Currently, evolution has the highest level of veracity that the scientific method allows; it is a scientific theory as well as a scientific fact. Whether or not you accept this as a fact beyond science, of course, is a different issue.

3) Creation is undoubtably a valid philosophical or religious hypothesis. But it is not a valid scientific hypothesis. Not because it is religious, but because it is a claim that does not meet the criteria needed to form a scientific hypothesis. If you believe otherwise, I’ll ask the same of you as I asked Mortarman, and we can examine this idea: state the scientific hypothesis of Creation.

Got to go or I’m going to miss Mass.

Peace,

D.

Would "the religious right" be more acceptable than extremist?

That's the term that keeps coming to my mind anyway.

I guess that would put me on "the religious left". <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

And it is sad that there has to be a right and a wrong, an either/or. And to me that has been the underlying current of this entire thread.

Both WAT and 2long have asked why does it have to be one or the other, why not both? And why would evolution negate anyone's belief in God?

It is scary. And if you think about it in all it's implications it gets really, really scary.

WAT has been ignored more than once when he said he was NOT an athiest although he strugges with it sometimes, and because he is not a Christian it is STILL being implied that that makes him an athiest. That is disrespectful and hurtful because his own personal belief system is being discounted/discredited.

So who really holds the "victim" card here.

Mel,

I was referring to this in 2long's previous post!

2long said -

"Sadly, for every one of those "chutneys" and curious taxpayers, there's a few dangerous nutballs out there. I have colleagues who have received death threats for simply refuting the artificial orgin of the so-called "face" on Mars." end of 2long's quote.

Those are the nutballs I was referring to. I didn't call anyone on this thread a nutball. I too am enjoying being a lurker!

My husband has also been on the receiving end of similar nutballs on a different gut-level issue that concerns me. Our home phone and address are never listed publically because of these type of "nutballs"!

CSue:

Thank you. I just logged in specifically 2 address Mel's concern. I was NOT referring 2 anybody on this thread, or even any of the characters we've been talking about who are not on this thread.

I was specifically referring 2 followers of Richard Hoaglund - the chief proponent of the Face on Mars being artificial in origin - and my own experiences and those of my colleagues with these people. Some of these colleagues have 2 have unlisted OFFICE numbers because of these threats.

I find that very sad.

-ol' 2long

Thanks CSue and 2Long, for clarifying your point! Please accept my apology! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

weaver wrote:


I suppose it would suffice if the person had nothing more intelligent to offer up than a label. But, again, "extremist" is a meaningless, subjective term that changes from person to person. My idea of extreme is probably your idea of normal and vice versa. I am a "religous right" member, and proud of it, but just calling me that [or "extreme"] won't suffice in discrediting me. One still must support their case using facts, evidence, reason and logic.


Well, I promise I won't dismiss you based on your affiliation with the religious left or call you an "extremist," that would make me a close minded bigot. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />


Is that right? Or is it wrong? So you aren't saying that the religious right "extremists" are wrong?


Weaver, I do not understand what you mean. Two contradicting premises obviously cannot both be right, can they? That is impossible. The truth "has" to be nothing... but the truth. So it is not proper to say something "has to be" but rather "what is." Nor is it anyone's "beliefs" that determine the truth. Reality determines the truth, regardless of what one believes. And I don't know what you mean when you say that "evolution negates one's belief in God?" Who has ever asserted such a thing? I just don't know what you mean by that.

I had some more thoughts I wanted 2 talk about, but a new, rotten development came up this afternoon, so my entrails are all a'flutter again.

-ol' 2long