40% of Americans belive the world was created 6000-years ago

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick

I could say the same thing about God.

You could, but that'd be a non sequitur.

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick

For me to say I know for sure would be a lie.

For you to know anything "for sure" about anything in the sense you mean would be "a lie". And yet, we are sure of things. We do know things.

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick

Both sides are dependant on faith to one degree or another to support their claims.

And both sides are also dependent upon knowledge to support their claims. Faith and knowledge are brothers, not father and son.

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick

I could say when God created heaven and earth, there was a big bang.

Figuratively speaking, sure. It happens in every moment.

[Agnostic75]

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick

I never said how old I thought the world is. You just assume that I am one of the 40%. I just hold scientists to their own standards and don't put much faith in theories until proven by replication. That would be proof positive.

The vast majority of experts, including some Christian experts, believe that a global flood did not occur, that the earth is old, and that if a God exists, he has used evolution to create life slowly over time. Do you disagree with any of those positions?

What standards do you recommend for evaluating worldviews?

Do you believe that you would have become a Christian during any time period, and no matter where you lived, assuming that you had read the Bible?

[LittleNipper]

Originally Posted by tumbleweed41

Science relys on overwhelming evidence to reach conclusions. religion relies on personal experience and pure faith.


Evolution has been brought into the discussion as an element of science.



As I said, all available evidence points to the occurrence of the Big Bang. The most conclusive being the observation of cosmic background radiation. Secondly,the universe is expanding—meaning that the separations between galaxies are becoming larger and larger. Also, the Big Bang perfectly explains the abundance of helium and other nuclei like deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) in the universe. A hot, dense, and expanding environment at the beginning could produce these nuclei in the abundance we observe today. All this supports the Big Bang explanation for the origins of the Universe.
As long as new evidence continues to support the Big Bang theory, it will be accepted as a fact. If it is found that continuing discoveries do not support the theory, it must be discarded or altered to fit the evidence. As of right now, evidence continues to support the Big Bang theory.
Science relies on evidence. It relies on logical conclusions based on the evidence. To say "we do not know for certain" is an oversimplification. The "degree of faith" is a faith in the consistency of the evidence. Fortunately this "faith" is not dogmatic and can change as our knowledge of the workings of the nature increase. This is why science continues to search for answers. It would be foolish to say "we have all the answers we need". Or "this answer is correct so there is no need to continue investigation".

So who determinds what exactly constitutes "overwhelming" evidence? What maybe overwhelming to one might just be something to ignore by another?

[johnhanks]

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

GOD had HIS revelation written down over thousands of years by various writers...

What a very strange thing to do. Almost as if he wanted his revelation to be indistinguishable from the accumulated speculations of hundreds of generations of fallible humans.

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

... and yet everything lines up as a perfect standard for what every human should believe.

But 'lining up' is the last thing it does. Christians are constantly having to come up with contrived explanations of why this or that stern OT injunction is no longer in force. As I said, uncannily as though it were entirely the product of humans codifying the temporary mores of their particular time and place.

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

Science should not accept educated opinions nor hypotheses, but absolute facts. Unfortunately, science is only infallible if it is a repeatable experiment that can be eyewitnessed. Evolution is not.

This is abysmal. The structure of science rests wholly on hypotheses and their testing: it is not just the collection and cataloguing of 'absolute facts', whatever you think they are. Evolution is tested all the time: it could in principle be falsified every time, for example, a new fossil bed is uncovered. Its resilience in the face of all this testing make it, as others have pointed out, as much a fact as gravitation.

[tumbleweed41]

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

So who determinds what exactly constitutes "overwhelming" evidence? What maybe overwhelming to one might just be something to ignore by another.

What a very telling statement from a Creationist.

[LittleNipper]

Originally Posted by tumbleweed41

In other words,

You have absolutely no evidence other than your reveled revelation for what you are saying. No geological, cosmological or biological evidence at all for a young earth, the flood, or special creation. You base your entire view on the supernatural.

You really have no evidence that the earth was not at one time rather smooth. You have only conjecture and no actual scientific first hand observation. I on the otherhand, have what purports to be a revelation from GOD. Now, if the Bible cannot be unbiasedly proved wrong in any area that I can investigate ---- why must one assume that it cannot be valid where no human endeavor is possible.

[Jose Fly]

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

You really have no evidence that the earth was not at one time rather smooth.

Actually, it was banana shaped.

I on the otherhand, have what purports to be a revelation from GOD.

Nope, sorry. God told me it was banana shaped. Do you have any evidence that it wasn't?

Now, if the Bible cannot be unbiasedly proved wrong in any area that I can investigate ---- why must one assume that it cannot be valid where no human endeavor is possible.

So if you happen to get leprosy, I'm sure we can count on you to employ the "Biblical cure" and not get anywhere near modern science. After all, that would be ridiculously hypocritical of you, and we can't have that!

[LittleNipper]

Originally Posted by Gunfingers

But we've seen what man looked like prior to a few thousand years ago, and it's pretty clear that he couldn't walk on the moon.

We do not know what the Universe was like prior to the FALL or the FLOOD. Honestly, I can imagine that asteroid strikes and meteors might just be the result of decay rather than what GOD's creation originally intended.

It is possible that the very trigger of the FLOOD was spawned the moment Adam sinned, and that all creators on the moon, etc., are the result of what took aim at planet earth as a direct result of the FALL of man. My own imaginings are only limited to GOD's Biblical revelation coupled with scientic determinations. But unlike evolution and Uniformitarianism, I must consider GOD's revelation relevant and not take it upon myself to assume anything. I might add, that what I do ponder and perhaps reasonably conclude is not a conclusion at all. I do not even consider anything I've previously stated concerning the FLOOD, creators, etc., as absolutes.
Such simply helps me understand what sorts of issues are facing secular determinations which are not focused on GOD and HIS truth at all.

[LittleNipper]

Originally Posted by I Am

To me religion is not the issue. And this may be off-topic, but it's my concern that education in general, especially in "English" classes, is extremely lacking. As a writer I often fear the demise of reading (that is of actual literature.... please no Twilight).

America is breeding a culture of ignorance. We are obsessed with laziness, with mediocrity, with disambition in this country.

I totally agree. My conclusion is that the problem with education today is that there are no absolutes desired. Students are not really taught to be discerning or really inquisitive.

They are pressured not the make waves in the peer groups and in the classrooms.

[tumbleweed41]

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

You really have no evidence that the earth was not at one time rather smooth. You have only conjecture and no actual scientific first hand observation.

Actually, the Earth was rather smooth...about 510 Million years ago. However, if the flood was about 4000 years ago, we have a plethora of evidence that demonstrates that it was not smooth at that time, or in the millions of years prior to the purported flood.

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

I on the otherhand, have what purports to be a revelation from GOD. Now, if the Bible cannot be unbiasedly proved wrong in any area that I can investigate ---- why must one assume that it cannot be valid where no human endeavor is possible.

A literal interpretation of the Bible in relation to natural events has been shown to be incorrect.