SDSTAFF Karen found it a few weeks ago. Turns out it was between the cushions of my couch.
My bad.
Change Your Password, Please and don’t use HTML, as it has been disabled, but you can learn about superscripts here
ARG220, I have no problem with B), as long as no one tries to teach it to my daughter in her science class. It is A) that I oppose in my fight against ignorance.
An excellent explanation Singledad, but how does it apply to the missing matter?
I understand that there are many theories to account for the missing matter, none generally accepted.
If I lose the TV remote, and my wife says it’s in the couch, my brother says it’s on the shelf, my friend says it’s in a drawer, and my priest says God doesn’t want me to watch TV I would not call that remote found. Would you.
Perhaps there is a preferrred explanation that I am not aware of.
If you know of one please share it so that I can see if I might blow the crap out of it.
Ben:
No. Definitely not. I believe that God had, and has a hand in every aspect of this universe. From top to bottom, beginning to end.
You mean, have I studied in college? Well, I did, for a short time. I took a few bio courses.
I think a creationist would make a good scientist. Actually, I think I would be a darn good scientist. It wasn’t me who said that creationists aren’t good scientists. That was someone else. It was I, who said that a creationist would not be handicapped in the lab, because of his/her beliefs.
“Life is hard…but God is good”
So what about all you other creationists who chafe at the demand for evidence? Rousseau? Should they have looked through the telescope?
-Ben
ARG220:
How does this, in any way, preclude evolution?
ARG220:
What evidence have they provided? ANY?
I guess I don’t understand how options A and B differ. Either you think the evidence is nonsense, or you think the evidence is nonsense, but you simultaneously are struck by the glory of God. Isn’t there an option C where you examine the evidence and it turns out to be overwhelmingly in favor of evolution? What do you do then?
-Ben
I obviously have not been exposed to grammar.
Adam, I am sick and tired of hearing that mealy excuse: No matter how much evidence we provide it won’t be enough, so why present any?
NO evidence has been provided! How dare you prejudge how David, I, or anybody else would react to evidence. If you can point to examples where evidence was presented, then dismissed by any of us, I would be happy, but in this forum, which was specifically designed just for that purpose, nothing has been brought forward. Perhaps an apology is in order here.
Eagles may soar free and proud, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines.
I guess I would call this the visualization of the “God exists just cause” argument.
Lets say God DOES exist, but he is invisable, has no mass, radiates no energy, has no effect on anything in the universe etc etc, basically he is completly and utterly unobservable. Isn’t his apparent nonexistence and the fact that we have a rather reasonable explaination of the universe more credible proof(or rather infered logic) then just claiming he exists because the bible said so?
If not, please elaborate.
Bored2001
I agree- the evolutionists have been demanding evidence and gotten three replies:
-
How dare you ask for evidence for creation when evidence is irrelevant to a person with my faith?
-
Why bother presenting evidence for creation when it is irrelevant to people with your narrow-mindedness?
-
Why bother presenting evidence for creation when one can change the subject?
I must admit that I’m disappointed that pashley hasn’t presented any evidence for creationism. Clearly it isn’t a matter of faith for him, or he wouldn’t be asking us, in another thread, to pretend that a Really Big Boat had been discovered. Instead of presenting imaginary evidence, pashley, why not present us with the real thing?
-Ben
I’m still maintaining that something as wonderful and complex as God, could not have possibly just evolved. So he must have needed a Super God to have created him…right???
It’s turtles. . . all the way down.
It seems to me that a lot of the bad blood here is being caused by equivocation between two types of creationism, which I will attempt to outline.
Creationism 1. Faith trumps Reason. You are able to accept scientific doctrines to a certain extent but if they conflict with a fundamental belief of your religion, religion comes first. Thus any and all evidence pointing to the truth of a heretical, threatening doctrine, such as evolution, must be disregarded as false and erroneous.
Creationism 2. Scientific Creationism. You believe that the theory of special creation provides a better explanation for the diveristy and nature of life on earth and related phenomenon than the theory of evolution. Presumably, You have evidence to back this claim up.
Although these Ideas are not logically mutually exclusive they can be separated, and it seems it would make the discussion clearer if they were.
If you believe in Creationism 1, you shouldn’t have this discussion. Since no amount of evidence will alter your beliefs, what is the point of asking for it. You simply refuse to accept this well established branch of science. Really we should have a separate discussion In which the relative merits of faith and reason are discussed. As a person who does not understand faith I would like to hear why some of you think it is a valid method to arrive at the truth.
If you believe in Creationism 2, I’m sorry you are wrong. There is absolutely no evidence for special creation, and lots for evolution. Evolution provides a consistent, fruitful, successful means for explaining many natural phenomenon. All I have seen Creation Scientists do is throw out a few ad hoc notions and some misguided attacks (The statistics bugbear, for example).
BTW, Evolution does NOT, repeat NOT, preclude any religious belief, including Christianity. ARG220 seems to be laboring under the misconception that evolutionary theory presupposes atheism, which is not true. The only Impact it would have on Judaism or Christianity or any other Bible based belief system is that the first few chapters of genisis will have to be read as metaphor rather than literal truth, something many Christians have advocated since long before Darwin.
Scylla, regarding the missing mass…
You’ve tricked me (an unusual acheivement in and of itself!) into a reversal of the burden of proof. Let me switch the question. You’re asserting that the “missing mass” is evidence of the existence of God. Make your case!
It’s depressingly ironic that I’m having fun having this discussion with Scylla acting as Devil’s advocate, while the real Creationists lack either the brains or the balls (or both) to do the simplest web search to find the information Scylla has presented.
Against stupidity the very gods / Themselves contend in vain.
Slythe: I do apologize, for my judging you who want to see evidence for creation.
I looked up the word evidence in a dictionary, just in case I didn’t know what it meant. It also means proof. (Which we all knew)
I stated before that one cannot use science to prove creation. It’s simply not testable, in any way. Just as God is not testable using the scientific method.
Thus, speaking scientifically, there IS no proof, or evidence of Creation. This is quite hard for me to admit, because Creation is as much a fact for me as anything else in this world. I know that I KNOW that it’s absolute truth. I just can’t show scientific evidence of it. And that’s a darn shame.
Bored:
His existence is not apparent to you. It’s quite apparent to me.
It’s reasonable to you. Not to a Creationist.
No. You must be atheist. Of course it seems more logical to you that evolution is truth. Besides, theists don’t believe in God because the “Bible says so.” That’s a part of the reason, but we believe because of an emotional tie, a heartfelt bond, love, and a spiritual knowledge that He is real.
“Life is hard…but God is good”
You’re right, I am an Atheist, but only because I simply can not see how you believe. I attended church for many years, I was stuffed full of scripture, but I simply saw too many flaws. Maybe it’s my analytical mind, but thats the way I am.
To the theoretical 100% impartial observer does god exist? Is he observable?
Why? There is tons evidence.
Just a question. One that I hope you can answer impartially.
If the bible didn’t exist and you had never heard of God would you believe in him?
Adam: (or CalifBoomer or pat)
I understand your faith in God, and that He created the cosmos. However, I’m a little puzzled at your complete dismissal of science for these reasons. Do you accept any scientific findings? Why would our loving Father bless us with the talents and the desire to persue the truth unrelentingly, only to lead us astray? Why can’t evolution/ big bang theory by an acceptable mechanism for the Almighty to create what we see around us?
Feel free to limit how God acted. I’d rather look at the clues he’s given us. But if you are going to claim that your opinion is fact, especially here, than ye shall reap what ye sow.
-Dave
Scylla:
Yes you can. However, I submit that the fact that we have detected “missing matter” by some indirect observations and not yet observed it directly or explained it completely is irrelevant to “creation science”. Do you have an argument that it is indeed relevant?
I believe SingleDad means “found” as “there is evidence that it exists” and “observed” as “we have seen it and understand what it is”. The missing matter is found because we can see its effects.
Rutherford’s case is analogous. Rutherford observed evidence of another kind of “missing matter”; he expected equally distributed matter, but instead saw something happening that could only be explained by matter being distributed very non-uniformly. The matter between the atoms (although Rutherford didn’t know anything about atoms initially) was missing!
So Rutherford found that atoms had to exist, but he didn’t see them; he measured their effects, indirectly.
When atoms were actually observed is arguable.
That’s my understanding, also.
I fail to see why you place such importance ont he fact that we haven’t fully explained the missing matter. Could you please explain why this is important? Its interesting, it may have important implications to scientific theory and the future of science, but why does it matter in discussing “creation science” or the validity of science in general?
I hesitate to give you fuel for your fire, but if you want to lambaste science for not knowing everything, then the failure to merge general relativity and quantum electrodynamics is far more significant.
jrf