Gotta Vent

[instinct]

Science does not always have to prove things.

Well it does not...it CANT in many cases...but the point is that it HAS to TRY within it´s experimental and empiric nature....quote from wikipedia :

Scientists maintain that scientific investigation must adhere to the scientific method, a process for evaluating empirical knowledge which explains observable events in nature as a result of natural causes, rejecting supernatural notions.

if the goal of a scientist is to explain observable events REJECTING supernatural notions then i wonder how could creation theory and science go together...Noone will be able to proove a "creator" by rejecting the supernatural (i assume we agree that god is supernatural). If somebody does...fine...but then we´re not talking about God in a biblical sense anymore. Creationscience sounds like a typical publistic title i´d expect from the yellowpress...neither from a scientist, nor from somebody with a strong faith in god. I do NOT say there is no god. I am not sure if i do believe in god or not (had some not so nice experiences considering religious faith), but i DO believe that saying the bible´s literal description of the creation is MORE true then any scientific theory out there is wrong. I´m perfectly fine with ppl BELIEVING in god, and with ppl BELIEVING in Creation...but i wont let some amateur make that judgment for me, nor will i blindly trust any scientist....and i surely wont take the bible literally...too many hands were involved in writing, translating and interpreting it to do so...but that´s just my feeling and i´m fine with anybody feeling different

Thorsten[/list]

[beestee]

Anytime religious people can't win an argument they quote scripture.

[charleyc]

You guys are too funny. Anytime religious people can't win an argument they quote scripture.

Isn't that what being religious is about

This would have been the only time when Jesus was separated from his Father in spirit.

Always an excuse whenever it's convenient... The fact is this contradicts everything you have said.

How so? Do you mean how could an omnipresent being ever ask any question at all? Well, it does say that Jesus took off the fullness of his glory and became like man. Jesus incarnate was not omnipresent. His communication with God the Father would have been through the Holy Spirit. That is why he siad he only did what he saw the father do. It is in this way that Christians become like Christ. The bible promises the Holy Spirit will be with us as believers. It is by this Spirit that we can be so certain about the presence of God.

But I should say. I am not trying to win an argument. I thought we were having a discussion. You are making points and I am making points. You are expressing ideas about the bible, I am telling you what the bible says about those ideas. I am certainly not trying to argue with you into believing what I am saying. For all you know I made everything I posted here up. If you were truly inclined to believe it, you would look for yourself. God gives people the faith to believe his word, not Charley

[instinct]

Tho "Charley spoke: Do xyz" sounds a whole lotta more like doing it with a smile on the lips then "God spoke: Do xyz"

[charleyc]

Science does not always have to prove things.

Well it does not...it CANT in many cases...but the point is that it HAS to TRY within it´s experimental and empiric nature....quote from wikipedia :

Scientists maintain that scientific investigation must adhere to the scientific method, a process for evaluating empirical knowledge which explains observable events in nature as a result of natural causes, rejecting supernatural notions.

if the goal of a scientist is to explain observable events REJECTING supernatural notions then i wonder how could creation theory and science go together...Noone will be able to proove a "creator" by rejecting the supernatural (i assume we agree that god is supernatural). If somebody does...fine...but then we´re not talking about God in a biblical sense anymore. Creationscience sounds like a typical publistic title i´d expect from the yellowpress...neither from a scientist, nor from somebody with a strong faith in god. I do NOT say there is no god. I am not sure if i do believe in god or not (had some not so nice experiences considering religious faith), but i DO believe that saying the bible´s literal description of the creation is MORE true then any scientific theory out there is wrong. I´m perfectly fine with ppl BELIEVING in god, and with ppl BELIEVING in Creation...but i wont let some amateur make that judgment for me, nor will i blindly trust any scientist....and i surely wont take the bible literally...too many hands were involved in writing, translating and interpreting it to do so...but that´s just my feeling and i´m fine with anybody feeling different

Thorsten[/list]

First off look in a more traditional place (ie one that is not information gathered from anyone willing to add). a dictionary like this one
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-b...ary&va=science
doesn't exactly include the part about supernatural. At one time, the evidence of atomic properties could easily have existed wihtin the realm of supernatural.

Also, that site does not deal as much with attempting to use science to prove a creator, as much as it deals with the physical accuracies (or inaccuracies as some think) within the bible. For example the flood of Noah. Is there any scientific evidence of such a thing? That is a main theme in that site. But again, I am not here to convince anyone to believe what I do. If you are interested, look into it. If not, oh well.

[charleyc]

Tho "Charley spoke: Do xyz" sounds a whole lotta more like doing it with a smile on the lips then "God spoke: Do xyz"

Yeah, I have never been accused of provoking reverence in others, maybe it is my name

[visualride]

Creationism is designed to send all of us back to the dark ages. Period.

Does anyone else feel like their in the middle of a loony toons cartoon these days with this bizarre movement? It's funny to read about, but when it affects my kids at school, it's time to write a letter to Mr. Warner Bros.

[Frances]

Creationism is designed to send all of us back to the dark ages. Period.

Does anyone else feel like their in the middle of a loony toons cartoon these days with this bizarre movement? It's funny to read about, but when it affects my kids at school, it's time to write a letter to Mr. Warner Bros.

The Creation story from the Bible is an alleghory for evolution. Almost step by step. Paradise ended when Man ceased to rely solely on instinct and began to think rationally. With rationality came the awareness of our mortality.

[charleyc]

Creationism is designed to send all of us back to the dark ages. Period.

Actually, when I grew up evolution was taught as a theory. Creation was not taught along side it, but it was mentioned as an alternate belief. Nowadays evolution is pretty much accepted as fact. And on top of that many evolutionists make broad derogatory remarks against anyone who dare challenge it. That seems a bit odd to me as well. This is why you are seeing a movement attempting to provide alternate theories. Evolution, when looked upon at even a rudimentary level seems no more than someones bizarre wish for how things should be. There is no evidence of it, and if it were true, there should be more evidence than we could possible imagine. We should literally be walking on the millions of years of transitional species. We should see evidence of evolution within species today. The simple fact is we do not have any of this.

As it sits now, evolution is as much in the realm of supernatural as creation.

[charleyc]

The Creation story from the Bible is an alleghory for evolution. Almost step by step.

Far from it. The Genesis account of creation has the plants being formed prior to the sun. It has the fish and birds before the insect and land animals. This is not only contray to evolution, it is contray to what we would perceive as natural. Again I point to this
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ42.html

[visualride]

There is no evidence of it, and if it were true, there should be more evidence than we could possible imagine. We should literally be walking on the millions of years of transitional species. We should see evidence of evolution within species today. The simple fact is we do not have any of this.

There is no evidence that the world is round either. There is solid evidence that people have been falling off the edge all these years and non-church groups have been covering it up. I'm with you all the way. I'm not being sacastic at all, just level headed.

[charleyc]

There is no evidence of it, and if it were true, there should be more evidence than we could possible imagine. We should literally be walking on the millions of years of transitional species. We should see evidence of evolution within species today. The simple fact is we do not have any of this.

There is no evidence that the world is round either. There is solid evidence that people have been falling off the edge all these years and non-church groups have been covering it up. I'm with you all the way. I'm not being sacastic at all, just level headed.

You can believe whatever you want. Thus far this discussion has progressed at a fairly civlized rate even with some major differences of opinions. It would be cool if you could do the same.

[studioDIM]

i am convinced.
Please put the signature back up.

Lele

[visualride]

I'm sorry that you mistook my comparison as uncivilized. I see it as a very fair comparison. We 3d animation professionals tend to have a mix of art and science in our ways of thinking. The scientific part of me has been reading hard evidence of evolution since I was able to read 35 years ago, and the artistic part of me wants to portray evolution to you as an obvious fact in a fun way.

[charleyc]

I'm sorry that you mistook my comparison as uncivilized. I see it as a very fair comparison. We 3d animation professionals tend to have a mix of art and science in our ways of thinking. The scientific part of me has been reading hard evidence of evolution since I was able to read 35 years ago, and the artistic part of me wants to portray evolution to you as an obvious fact in a fun way.

Have a look at this.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...html#wp1185921
For 30 years this man has had a standing offer for a televised debate of creation vs evolution. Thus far no one has taken it.
I too have spent a lot of time reading about evolution. I have yet to read good qualified, hard evidence. There are some very good points to it here and there, but as a whole it falls way short of a rational idea.

BTW, the only reason I continue to use this site as an example is that the guy lives in the same city as me and I have gotten to meet him and hear him talk a bit. The guy is many times smarter than I am. He is a retired Air Force Colonel and holds a Ph.D in engineering from MIT. And funny enough, he claims to have beleived in evolution for years and it was by studing it deeper for some years that this guy changed his mind about it.