PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Egocentricity and Creationism
       Intellectual bankruptcy, dogma & damage to Christainity

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Provocative title? well those are all terms used by a Christian I was talking with recently to sum up how they felt the ye-Creationist attitude to Evolutionary science was best summed up.

Ye-Creationists are walking the same path taken by the Catholic church community who chose to ignore the mounting evidence in the heliocentricity debate of the time- the notion that the earth was not at the centre of the solar system and it was the earth who orbited the sun, and not the opposite way round as had been held to be true.

Eventually, after increasingly ridulous compromise on the issue, the Church retracted and accepted the obervations and theories of the proponents of the sun centred solar system.

However, this episode served to damage the Church in many ways- a viewpoint defended by scripture had been officially reversed, and the actions used in its defense brought to scrutiny.

To advocate such a view such as the sun orbiting the earth today would be to do so in the face of what is plainly fact.

Which brings me to the point of ye-Creationists and their role (in principle, not authority thank goodness, as in Galileo's time) of opposition to what has been discovered by evolution.

How tenable will the ye-Creationist position be in 100 years time? well we can only speculate, but judging by the advances in large areas of science related to evolution, much less tenable than it precarious postion today.

I wonder if a lesson of history will be learned, or if the ye-Creationists are set to receive the same epitaph as those who insisted that the sun orbited the earth, and justified those beliefs with passages from the Bible.


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 11:09 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ah but the catholics aren't real Christian's TM
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 06:21 AM on May 12, 2004 | IP
godyag

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I was raised Catholic (although I don't consider myself one now) and every Catholic I ever talked to considered themselves Christian?  As far as I know a Christian is a person who believes that Christ is the Son of God... however, I don't know who decides on the exact definition of a Christian.


-------
love,
godyag
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 10:03 AM on May 12, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from godyag at 10:03 AM on May 12, 2004 :
I was raised Catholic (although I don't consider myself one now) and every Catholic I ever talked to considered themselves Christian?  As far as I know a Christian is a person who believes that Christ is the Son of God... however, I don't know who decides on the exact definition of a Christian.



I don't think any religion has been divided up into so many sub-branches as Christianity.  And while many of them say, "This is what we think, but if your method works for you that's great", alot of them are more of the opinion, "We have the truth, if you don't do things our way, you're damned."

While your definition works for me, some would say it's too dogmatic, and that all you need to do is follow his philosophy, withing aknowleding his divinity.  Others, of course, would go the other way, and say it's not enough to aknowledge his divinity, but must live your life according to some specific interpretation of his doctrines.

As for Occams question, the ye position isn't tenable now.  This isn't a case of learned men battling against an entrenched system of dogma.  This is a bunch of people on the fringe, closing their eyes to the truth.  I suspect such types will always be with us in one form or another.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 11:03 AM on May 12, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How tenable will the ye-Creationist position be in 100 years time? well we can only speculate, but judging by the advances in large areas of science related to evolution, much less tenable than it precarious postion today

Actually... we have see the greatest advances in the area of creation science come about over the last 20 years.  In fact, the YE-creationist 'movement' has been gaining more and more steam as more and more answers become available.  While the workers are few now, that is beginning to change as more and more scientists who have held the evolutionist viewpoint perform their work and see 'evidence of the creator'.  

Make no mistake - there is more and more evidence emerging as ye-creationists go through the painstaking process of re-evaluating all the long held dogmatic evolutionary concepts.  The 'pendulum' as it were, is certainly beginning to swing in our direction.  

Of course, what does the Evolutionary paradigm fear most?  The church.  Why?  Because 'the church' carries so much power.  Why?  Because it has the ability to sway hearts and minds.  If the full weight of 'the church' got united behind ye-creationism it would stab evolution in the heart.  

The only 'niche' the evolutionary paradigm has is to convince people NOT to pay attention to evidence interpretation that supports a supernatural/spiritual conclusion.  If the eyes of 'the people' can be shifted off God and onto man or self, then they can be convinced of ANYTHING.  Why?  Because God's laws and characteristics are absolute and man's are not.  Lets look at morality for example.   God says that homosexuality is wrong.  It is an 'absolute'.  However, if you take a humanistic approach, we all came from goo and self evolved to monkeys... then eventually into man, there is no God in the process, therefore we are not ultimately responsible to follow his commandments.  That means we can make our own version of morality - in which case you have every person deciding for themselves what right and wrong are.  If THAT is the case, there is no moral basis for thinking homosexuality is wrong.  If evolution is true, there is no reason to adhere to any moral code.  People should marry as many other people as they want... people should marry and have sex with animals... people should do anything that 'feels good' to them.  Whatever seems right.

Moral decay has been the downfall and most destructive force to every major empire or world power in history.  It is especially dangerous to societies based on freedom.  With great power comes great responsibility.  The greater the power, the more 'damage' that can be done by evil men (or women) who yeild that power.  

ah but the catholics aren't real Christian's

?  Wha?  Where did you come up with that B - as in B ... S - as in S story?  I know several catholics who love the Lord dearly.  That's the biggest load of crap ever.  

I might not agree with some of the doctrine or politics of the catholic church, but how does that exclude them from being christians?

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  Who DO they worship if not the God of the Bible?  Who DO they believe in if not Christ?

Kronus:  As for Occams question, the ye position isn't tenable now.  This isn't a case of learned men battling against an entrenched system of dogma.  This is a bunch of people on the fringe, closing their eyes to the truth.  I suspect such types will always be with us in one form or another.

That is just ignorance, Kronus.  Each and every article I quote to you from  AiG is from a person with a Phd in the feild they are discussing.  They didn't buy those degrees online... they earned them.  They are indeed 'learned' men.  The people who are credited with founding the very science you hold so dear - Newton, Bacon, Kelper, Boyle, Linneaus, Morse, Faraday, Joule, Mendel, Pasteur, Kelvin, GW Carver, etc - I wouldn't call these people 'on the fringe closing their eyes to the truth'.  

The YE-creationists are gaining momentum and ground, not losing it.  

The 'embarrassment to the church' happens when we let the ideas of man override God's word.  Man's ideas are fallible, God's word is not.  As long as our interpretation of evidence lines up with the word of God, we argue from a positon of power and truth.  If the word of God has nothing to say about a specific subject, it is open to man's fallible interpretation.  The 'church' can avoid embarrassment by endorsing only reaearch that lines up with the Word, and not trying to hold to ideas that 'seem' like it should be true, or that give the church some sort of popular acceptance.  Therein lies the embarrassment.  If it serves to inflate the ego of man, rather than glorify God, then it is not something the church should 'bank on'.  If we dont' know - we don't know.  Evolution has flip-flopped on so many issues in the past.  This is the result of placing so much emphasis on 'evidence' without realizing the importance of the interpretive process.  The church would look the fool if they based everything on the 'here today, gone tomorrow' evidences that come and go.  We must remain firm on God's Word (the Bible) as the only ultimate source of truth, and measure every evidenciary interpretation by that truth.    
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 2:48 PM on May 12, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ahh the ages old 'evolution is failing' and creation is gaining momentum.  Science is not a democracy.  The 'momentum' rests with the evidence.  There is no evidence for ye-creationism and thus, there can be no momentum.  This old wives tale has already made the rounds on this board (see evolution is failing thread).  In the meantime, ex ye-creationist Glenn Morton has written a nice treatise on this old canard.

Evolution is failing, or is it?

Cheers

Joe Meert

(Edited by Joe Meert 5/12/2004 at 3:25 PM).
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 3:21 PM on May 12, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually... we have see the greatest advances in the area of creation science come about over the last 20 years.  In fact, the YE-creationist 'movement' has been gaining more and more steam as more and more answers become available.

No, they've been gaining political backing as the educational standards in America continue to drop.  Having a fundamentalist president helps too.

Make no mistake - there is more and more evidence emerging as ye-creationists go through the painstaking process of re-evaluating all the long held dogmatic evolutionary concepts.

Really?  Then why do you use the same tired examples that were put forth and refuted
years ago?

Of course, what does the Evolutionary paradigm fear most?

Ignorance?

The only 'niche' the evolutionary paradigm has is to convince people NOT to pay attention to evidence interpretation that supports a supernatural/spiritual conclusion.

Facts are facts.  Argue all you want about the "evolutionary paradgm".  The fact remains that the ToE is the best interpretation of all the available evidence.  YEC "science" consists of taking isolated examples and trying to shoehorn them into a biblical perspective.  Has anyone else ever notices that they have no cohesive theory?  YEC "science" will take one situation/event, concoct a story that they feel explains it in a biblical perspective, but one which totally ignores all other factors.  So YEC science consists of using one isolated example and excluding all contradictory examples.

If THAT is the case, there is no moral basis for thinking homosexuality is wrong.

Scary, isn't it?  Tell me, do you stone homosexuals on sight as the bible commands you to?  Why not?
People should marry as many other people as they want... people should marry and have sex with animals... people should do anything that 'feels good' to them.

Yeah, I think that's one of the guiding precepts of the ToE

Moral decay has been the downfall and most destructive force to every major empire or world power in history.  It is especially dangerous to societies based on freedom.  With great power comes great responsibility.

Right!  So let's institute a theocracy!  All us godless heathens need you to guide us gup!  BTW, quoting spider-man comics doesn't help your cause, thought I find they are more in tune with reality than AiG.
Once again, how is showing us a list of scientists long dead before the ToE was even proposed indicative of anything? Example:  "Automobiles are evil!  Leonardo Da Vinci, one of the greatest minds of all time, never rode in an automobile!"


The 'embarrassment to the church' happens when we let the ideas of man override God's word.  As long as our interpretation of evidence lines up with the word of God, we argue from a positon of power and truth.

Right!  Good thing we never listened to those heathen astronomers who told us that the earth orbited the sun.  I mean, come on!  The church has clearly divined that the bible (ie god) tells us that the heavens orbit the earth!

Evolution has flip-flopped on so many issues in the past.  This is the result of placing so much emphasis on 'evidence'

I love how he puts "evidence" in quotes! :lol:

We must remain firm on God's Word (the Bible) as the only ultimate source of truth, and measure every evidenciary interpretation by that truth.

Right, because we all know that facts are lies!

(Edited by TQ 5/12/2004 at 3:30 PM).


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 3:28 PM on May 12, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 2:48 PM on May 12, 2004 :


Kronus: This isn't a case of learned men battling against an entrenched system of dogma.  This is a bunch of people on the fringe, closing their eyes to the truth.  I suspect such types will always be with us in one form or another.

That is just ignorance, Kronus.  Each and every article I quote to you from  AiG is from a person with a Phd in the feild they are discussing.  They didn't buy those degrees online... they earned them.  They are indeed 'learned' men.  The people who are credited with founding the very science you hold so dear - Newton, Bacon, Kelper, Boyle, Linneaus, Morse, Faraday, Joule, Mendel, Pasteur, Kelvin, GW Carver, etc - I wouldn't call these people 'on the fringe closing their eyes to the truth'.  



Right.  Now go back and read what I wrote again.  Note the punctuation.  That dot is a period, it denotes where a scentence ends.  The idea of using seperate sentences is to seperate distinct ideas.   Your pals at AiG may be learned, I never said they weren't, but they are on the fringe with their eyes closed.  Newton et. al., those are the learned men.

 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 3:31 PM on May 12, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First off, I want to note I am not intending to hold up the Catholic Church as the bad boy here- it just so happens they were the one of the parties in the heliocentricity debate, or draw paralles with the present day Vatican view.

I don't believe the Anglican's or Orthodox church were falling over themselves to accept the notion either... its the dogma I was getting at.


I find myself in the rare position of whole heartedly agreeing with one of Gup's comments; the ye-creationist movement has certainly become more organised and defined in the last 20 years. I imagine the majority of "creation science" material dates from this period.


Sadly, I don't see that as a positive force in our civilisation, but a devisive one. It is also a reactionary force that is never going to be in a position of initiative- they will never be ahead of those reaserching evolution, genetics, paleobiology etc... All the creation scienctists can do is attempt to counter what science has discovered.

The other interesting thing with Gup's response is it exposes the root of the creationist problem with evolution- and it is nothing to do with the science at all.

The objection is a moral one, and that alone. More specifically, evolution etc. is taken as a direct attack on a perception of Man (I would use the term human, but here I'll stick with their choice of term) being at the top of the pile in some way.

The very notion we may be descended from "apes" seems to be a direct affront to creationist thinking, which in turn I see as the manifestation of a very deeply held prejudice.

So despite all its forced intellectualism, this is what the ye-creationists are fighting for and desperately cling too.


Which brings me onto what TQ said- the threat of theocracy. What if the evolutionists tore it all up and said "D'oh! we were wrong after all.... silly us!" in the face of Creationist pressure, then what?

The creationists have been able to force the acceptance of their dogma in the face of reason and impartiallity. That is a dangerous precedent to set (historical alarm bells ringing anyone?).

Nearly done- Gup, I can understand religously motivated homophobia, but the association with bestiality is a cheap shot to say the least.

And finally, to take your quote: "Man's ideas are fallible, God's word is not." this maybe the case, however we are yet to see proof of man's infallibility in reading that word.


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 7:23 PM on May 12, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

JM:  The 'momentum' rests with the evidence.

This shows me you are under the impression that facts speak for themselves.  Facts say nothing... facts are facts.  Isn't it interesting that Biblical creationists and Evolutionists have the same body of evidence.  Yet we come to such very different conclusions.  This is because we both interpret the evidence through the lense of our pre-suppositions and worldview.  If you hold the evolutionary paradigm, you have committed to interpreting everything you see with the distinct exclusion to any supernatural influence.  It's not surprising then that your conclusions and interpretations arrive at the same end.  

If you get hung up on momentum, maybe we'll choose a different synonym for you.  Lets say that the YEC position is 'increasing in answers' to the questions evolutionists have been posing since Darwin.  

TQ: No, they've been gaining political backing as the educational standards in America continue to drop.  Having a fundamentalist president helps too.

Let me clue you in - the private schools I went to had to take standardized tests every year (something that 'public schools' don't have to do) to insure that the education level is within public standards.  Every single year, our SCHOOL AVERAGE was in the 95th percentile or higher... meaning that only 5 percent of schools in the nation were at that level of education.  

In the meantime public schools keep passing people on who didn't pass the grade.

So then, someone like G. W. Bush comes along and creates the 'no child left behind' program making it mandatory that our children have learned their studies before they advance to the next grade.  What a novel concept that is!  It's not that the educational standards are dropping, my friend, its that there are now academic standards at all (whereas there have been none in the past).

TQ: Really?  Then why do you use the same tired examples that were put forth and refuted
years ago?


Why do you use arguments proven wrong 6000 years ago?  (when people were there to observe all these things)

TQ: Facts are facts.

EXACTLY!  They do not draw their own conclusions, nor do they interpret themselves.  

TQ: The fact remains that the ToE is the best interpretation of all the available evidence.

If you are a humanist, or if you must exclude the Bible, then this statement is correct.  However, if you seek truth or want to know what 'really' happened, then you should pick up a Bible and read the actual account.  

TQ: Has anyone else ever notices that they have no cohesive theory?

In fact, we do have a cohesive theory.  If you wish to read the theory in it's entirety, go to this website.  It is the online version of a book written on the subject.  Just read the first 11 chapters to get the entire picture of YEC.  

TQ: Scary, isn't it?  Tell me, do you stone homosexuals on sight as the bible commands you to?  Why not?

Well I am glad you asked.  You will notice that the commandments for 'stoning homosexuals on sight' is in the old testament.  It is called the 'old testament' because it refers to the 1st covenant between God and Man.  It required there to be a blood sacrifice for sin that was committed.  It is often referred to as 'the law' of God.  The death of pure animal was required to cover the sin of man.  

However, the new testament is the 'new covenant' between God and man.  Why did we need a 'new covenant'?  Because Jesus came and fulfilled the old covenant.  Jesus fulfilled the law.  He redeemed us.  By his blood we are all saved / set free.  

When we were created by God, we were created as stewards of creation.  Satan stole that right from us at Adam's fall.  Jesus came to redeeem that right for us.  The first covenant with the Jews was that redemption would come through their bloodline.  Once the redeemer came, that covenant was fulfilled.  God then makes a new covenant with man - one that allows man to be attoned for by accepting the salvation that Jesus' death and resurrection offers.  

No longer are we 'under the law' but we are under grace.  Go to Romans chapter 5 to read all about that.  

Sin entered this world by Adam's disobedience, and death entered as a result of sin.  In the same way, grace intered the world by 1 man - Jesus - and eternal life in heaven as a result of grace.  

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:  
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.  
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.  


Therefore, we are under grace - not under the law.  Not that we should disobey the law, but that those who are in christ are no longer under the condemnation of the law because it was fulfilled by Jesus Christ.  So then, don't stone homosexuals because there is grace for them if they come to believe in Jesus Christ and accept the gift of salvation that is a result of his sacrifice for us.  We are to extend the invitation in love for them to accept the gift of salvation.  We have an opportunity to do this only until they die.  And once they do choose to believe, their sin is forgiven and covered by the blood Jesus sacrificed on the cross.

Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.  
16 And not as [it was] by one that sinned, [so is] the gift: for the judgment [was] by one to condemnation, but the free gift [is] of many offences unto justification.  
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)  
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.  

Does that mean that the homosexuality is no longer wrong?  No - it means there is grace for that person despite their sin if they choose to accept salvation.  

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?  
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?  

TQ:  Yeah, I think that's one of the guiding precepts of the ToE

If God created us, then he owns us and he sets the rules.  If we came about by evolution then we set our own rules - we choose the morality that suits us - we choose the values that suit us.  It's all dependent on what we want - there are no absolutes.  We set our own rules.

TQ:  Right!  So let's institute a theocracy!  All us godless heathens need you to guide us gup!

You see, what you are doing here TQ is assuming that since A is true, Z must also be true.  

I am not advocating a theocratic government, I am advocating the end to the anti-christian, anti-creation policies that have lead to the moral decay of our society.  Every time a religous freedom is encroached upon, we get further away from the moral base that lets great countries like ours (the USA) succeed in democracy and freedom.  Outlaw prayer in schools, outlaw the teaching of the Bible or creation in schools and you get moral decay.  The more humanism reighns, the more chaos reighns.  

Itsn't it interesting to look at many communist countries and their doctrines.  One prevailing doctrine is that you topple a free demoncratic society by undermining it's moral base.  Once corruption is seeded deep, you can easily transition to communism.  We see that already happening in the Democratic National party in America (the far left side of it anyway).  We see a complete lack of morality (abortion, homosexuality, etc) associated with socialist economic policy.  

TQ: Right!  Good thing we never listened to those heathen astronomers who told us that the earth orbited the sun.  I mean, come on!  The church has clearly divined that the bible (ie god) tells us that the heavens orbit the earth!

The Bible never says that, and it was the religous leader's (read 'mans') egocentricity that lead 'the church' down that path.  There is no scriptural basis for such.  This is what I am talking about - if we have scriptural basis for something, hold firm to it.  If not, have the humility to let it go, even if it doesn't attribute some sort of 'status' to the church.  The religious leaders had this egotistical (to the glory of man) view that lead them to hold onto fallicy.  We must have a focus on God and his Word and all we do must glorify him rather than stroke our own egos.  In that proper relationship we can stand firmly on the Word of God and never be embarrased - as truth will always prevail in the end.  

It is also important to see that those doctrines were an attempt to take the ideas of man and 'fit' them into the Bible.  We need to take the proper approach and begin from scripture as the interpretation and base to what we believe in interpreting facts and evidence.

TQ: Once again, how is showing us a list of scientists long dead before the ToE was even proposed indicative of anything?

It shows brilliantly how a proper perspective of the Bible leads to breakthrough interpretation of the 'facts' and 'evidences' around us.  These men (such as Newton) were devote fundamentalist christians who contributed tremendously to what we call 'science' today beause they interpreted the facts within the proper framework of scripture.  They started with a Biblical foundation and interpreted the things they saw within that foundation.  In doing such science, truth was revealed.  

You see - in so much that Evolution is exclusionary to the supernatural and therefore it's conclusions are exclusionary to the supernatural - creationism and Christianity take the Bible as inspired truth.  Therefore if you work from the viewpoint that the Bible is truth, then your interpretations and conclusions have the ability and chance to be true as well - something that is not the case in evolution as it excludes the supernatural truth of the Bible.  That isn't to say that truth cannot be found sans-scripture - just any truth regarding God and the origin of life on earth.  

TQ:  I love how he puts "evidence" in quotes!
Right, because we all know that facts are lies!


No, facts are not lies.  Remember we agreed that 'facts are facts'.  In order for facts to 'say' anything they must be interpreted and conclusions must be drawn.  If you do this from a framework that excludes truth, you have very little chance that the interpretation and conclusion will BE truth.  

Kronus:  Newton et. al., those are the learned men.

Newton et. al. were fundamentalist Young Earth Creationists Christians.  

Sadly, I don't see that as a positive force in our civilisation, but a devisive one. It is also a reactionary force that is never going to be in a position of initiative- they will never be ahead of those reaserching evolution, genetics, paleobiology etc... All the creation scienctists can do is attempt to counter what science has discovered.

Ah, but we are not yet in that phase of the conspiracy.  

At this point, the 'majority' is believes in evolution.  Once that changes, it will open the door to more initiative work in creation science.  For example - Newton was free to develop his gravatational theories.  He didn't have to spend any time defending his view that the Bible was infallible and true.  

Also, I would remind you that present day science (such as computers, cars, lasers, fusion etc) is unincumbered by one's belief in creation or evolution.  There are, in fact, thousands of creation scientists doing real world work currently.  For example, lets look at Dr. Russel Humphrey's work.  

From Here
Russel Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics




Education:

B.S. Physics, Duke University - 1963
Ph.D. Physics, Louisiana State University - 1972
Ph.D. dissertation: cosmic rays and ultrahigh energy nucleon-nucleon interactions.


Professional Experience:

From 1973 to 1979 I worked at the General Electric Company High Voltage in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. There I designed test and measurement equipment, invented instrumentation, and researched lightning and high-voltage phenomena. I received a U.S. patent and one of Industrial Research magazine's IR-100 awards.

In 1979 I began working as a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. There I have worked in nuclear physics, geophysics, high voltage engineering, pulsed power research, and theoretical atomic and molecular physics. For the first four years, I helped to develop borehole logging probes which used neutron generators and various nuclear radiation detectors to locate uranium and other mineral deposits. I have a U.S. patent for part of that work. From 1983 to 1995 I worked with Sandia's Particle Beam Fusion project [Science 232 (16 May 1986) pp. 831-836 and cover photo]. I was one of the two inventors of the 6 megavolt laser-triggered gas spark gaps used in the project's 100 terawatt particle accelerator, PBFA-II. This class of spark gaps, called "Rimfire" switches, are now coming into general use at many pulsed power facilities nationwide, and earned me one of Sandia's Exceptional Contribution awards. In 1988 I switched jobs within the project to design inertial confinement fusion targets. That work involved theoretical nuclear physics and radiation hydrodynamics in an effort to help the project produce the world's first laboratory-scale thermonuclear fusion. In 1990, Sandia awarded me an award "for excellence in developing and executing new and innovative light ion target theory." From 1995 to the present I have been working in nuclear weapons research.


Physics Research and Development - Professional:

Currently on nuclear weapons projects. Designed and theoretically analyzed thermonuclear fusion targets using radiation hydrodynamic codes. Designed key high-voltage parts of Sandia's 100-Terawatt Particle Beam Fusion Accelerator II and conducted fusion power experiments on it. Research on low-temperature solids and studies on superconductors. Developed high repetition-rate neutron tube driver and gamma-ray spectrometer for borehole logging applications. Patents on wide-bandwidth electric field sensor and high-voltage neutron tube supply. Designed lightning current waveform recorder which won IR-100 Award. Studied electric fields and ion currents under ultrahigh voltage DC transmission lines. Theoretical studies of velocity dependence of nuclear forces. Ph.D. dissertation: cosmic rays and ultrahigh energy nucleon-nucleon interactions.

Scientific Research - Creationist:

Paleomagnetism: Developed theory for rapid reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the Genesis flood; it shared prizes for best technical paper at the First and Second International Conferences on Creationism, 1986 and 1990, and it successfully predicted later measurements.

Geomagnetism: Developed theory for origin of planetary magnetic fields which successfully predicted later spaceprobe measurements, 1983 - present.

Geochemistry: Co-authored paper on sodium accumulation in the ocean; it shared a prize at the Second International Conference on Creationism in 1990 and has challenged evolutionists.

Cosmology: Began development of a relativistic creationist cosmology. The first article won an award at the Third International Conference on Creationism, 1994. Wrote a best-selling book about it, as well as several technical articles defending it and developing it further.


As you can see, Dr. Humphreys currently works on nuclear weapons projects, etc.  I would say that creationist science goes on every day - it's just that creationists view it as 'every day science'.  There are only a few doing the work of proving/refuting creationism/evolution itself - most are happily using their creationist views in their everyday work.  

OR:  The other interesting thing with Gup's response is it exposes the root of the creationist problem with evolution- and it is nothing to do with the science at all.

Let the trumpets blare - there is one who gets it!!

I would adjust your argument to say that Man is not at the top of the Pile, God is at the top of the Pile and we are here to serve Him.

This is why arguments with creationists and evolutionists never seem to go anywhere... the real argument is between christianity and humanism.  The science is pretty much the same.

OR:  So despite all its forced intellectualism, this is what the ye-creationists are fighting for and desperately cling too.  

While chalked full of inuendo and jibe, I wouldn't argue the underlying premise.  Young Earth Creationism exists to promote and demonstrate the inerrancy and authority of scripture and ultimately promote a personal choice to accept Jesus Christ.  

OR:  The very notion we may be descended from "apes" seems to be a direct affront to creationist thinking, which in turn I see as the manifestation of a very deeply held prejudice.

The Bible says that God created man on Day 6, as a separate creation from all else.  The only thing made in the image of God.  We are not 'on about' man coming from apes becuase it offense our sense of superiority.  To say such perpetuates the lie that you are coming so close to exposing.  We do so to defend the Bible as ultimate truth, as God's word and He are one.

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  

OR:  What if the evolutionists tore it all up and said "D'oh! we were wrong after all.... silly us!" in the face of Creationist pressure, then what?

Then we would certainly see a return to the moral foundation of the Bible.  It would once again hold a place of authority.  What a great day that would be for God, and for the USA.  We would end our downward trend toward moral collapse that will eventually be the destruction of freedom in the USA.  How would that change science and technology?  It wouldn't - as I said before - most creation scientists go on doing their work unincumbered by the fallicies of evolutionary thought (for the most part anyway).  

It would however have an impact on the hearts and minds of the people.  Many would no longer have the crutch of humanism to hold them back from accepting the truth in the Word of God that they need a savior - that they need Jesus.  

Crime would decrease, prosperity would increase along with peace and joy.  The world would be a happy place again for supermodels an beauty pagent contestants.    

Isn't it interesting how the more sin and death one experiences, the less 'naive' one becomes?  Just as Adam and Eve did in the garden of Eden.  Just as America has experienced over the last 60 years.  Think back to the 1940's.  Would you describe those Americans as naive?  Is there an innocence  about them?  Why do you suppose that is?  More sin, and less foundation on the principles of the Bible which is the blueprint for happieness and life - not just biological life but 'zoe' life - the life that includes happiness and peace.  The 'God kind of life'.    

OR:  Gup, I can understand religously motivated homophobia, but the association with bestiality is a cheap shot to say the least.

Sadly, I would have to say that I think you have missed it when it comes to christianity.  Let me give you some practical examples -

There was a woman in our church who was a bit of a nut-case.  She started stalking some of the pastors and staff members at church.  It came to a point where she would be sitting in people's living rooms when they got home - real freaky stuff.  They found out she had a history of mental illness.  So what did they church leaders decide to do about this?  They did what any other person would do - they went to court and got a restraining order.  And what were the terms of the order?  That between certain hours she was to ALWAYS be at church!  Wha?!  Always be at church?  After a few months she started to calm down... and today she is a normal functioning of the congregation.  

You see - 'the church' blew it big time in the past.  We see doctrine like 'excommunication' and heretics being burned at the stake in the ancient 'church'.  However, this is the exact opposite of the action that God tells us to take.  

Mat 5:3 Blessed [are] the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  
4 Blessed [are] they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.  
5 Blessed [are] the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.  
6 Blessed [are] they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.  
7 Blessed [are] the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.  
8 Blessed [are] the pure in heart: for they shall see God.  
9 Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.  
10 Blessed [are] they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  
11 Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you], and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.  
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great [is] your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Let me give you another example - when I was younger, I went to a church with my parents.  One of church leaders who was in charge of the music was found to be having an adulterous affair.  That man was asked to leave the church and was told he could come back in 2 years if he cleaned up his life and demonstrated it.  What happened to him?   He divorced his wife a year later and became an alchoholic.  

Now contrast that with another case in a different church I attended.  There was a man who was married with 2 young children.  It was discovered that he also was having an affair, but with another man.  Not only was he an adulterer, but he was also a homosexual.  What did the church do?  They removed him from his leadership role (he was also in the Music ministry) but they encouraged many many people to visit he and his wife and encourage them.  They asked for people to volunteer to do nice things for them, such as make dinners and what not to take some of the pressure off the family.  They also gave them free family counsellling.  What happened in this case?  The man repented of his sin, stayed with his wife and the family was not broken apart.  That man, whom I happened to be friends with (and remained so even after the scandal), remained a part of the church, was encouraged and supported by the church members, and healing to him and his family resulted.  

The last I had heard he got a really good job in another state and he and his wife and their kinds are doing well.  Most importantly they are together as a family.    

That is the model that Jesus gave us - that we are to love the sinner, but hate the sin.  That we dont' throw people away - because all of us have sinned before and we all need to be forgiven by God.  His forgiveness is extended as a free gift to all - regardless of what sin you have committed.  To God, sin is sin - disobedience to his word is the only sin.  So regardless of what sin you have committed you are still a sinner and in need of redemption.  

As a matter of fact, God gives us an example of a man who owed a lot of money to the king.  I can't remember the exact number, so we'll just say $10,000.  He went before the king and the king was going to have him thrown in prison, but he begged the king to have mercy on him and he would repay the debt.  The king decided to grant him mercy.  The man went out and the next week found a man who owed him $100.  The man couldn't pay him back, but begged for time to pay the debt.  The first man was so angry that he had the man who owed him $100 thrown into debtor's prison.  Now word got back to the king and he was very angry and had the man thrown into prison for the rest of his life.  

What can we learn from that?  That as we were forgiven, it is our duty to forgive others.  That how can we expect God to forgive us of our sins if we can't forgive others?

... the association with bestiality is a cheap shot ...

If there is no absolute right or wrong - who is to say that beastiality is any more or less wrong that homosexuality?  In fact, there are many documented cases of people who are 'in love' with their animals.  There have even been those who have attempted to obtain marriage licenses with their animals.  I am not joking.  If God's Word isn't true... and we all got here by evolution, then there is nothing to say that if a man wants to marry a horse, and that man is 'in love' what is to stop him?

Moreover, if the instituton of marriage is not the same institution started by God with the first two human beings, who is to say that a man and man can't be married?  Who is to say that a woman and a woman can't be married.  Who is to say that a man and three women can't be married?  Who is to say that 2 men, three women, a dog, a cat, and 2 sheep can't all join together in 'holy matrimony'?  If we are all doing what seems right to us - and there is no absolute moral standard - then we can set that bar whereever we choose.  Who is to say that a man can't love his horse more than an man can love another man?  Who's right is it to make those decisions for who or what someone loves?

It's not a leap from homosexuality to beastiality.  These are subsets of the same sexual perversion.  God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.  That may sound like a joke, but i am completely serious.  God created one man and one woman and said that the 'two should be one flesh'.  God ordained marriage as between one man and one woman.  

To try to change that definition is to pervert the original creation and intention.  But why should that bother us?  After all the Bible is just a book of stories and has no bearing on the physical world - right?  You see - the humanistic undermining of the Word of God.  If you take away it's authority in Genesis, you take away the whole of scripture - because everything in the Bible is ultimately based on the foundation of Genesis.  That is what humanism has been trying to do since Satan used it in the Garden of Eden to fool Adam and Eve into disobeying God.  Humanism undermines God's Word (the Bible).  Evolution is Humanism - therefore there is a natural emnity between humanism and christianity.  Always has been.  

OR:   "Man's ideas are fallible, God's word is not." this maybe the case, however we are yet to see proof of man's infallibility in reading that word.

Excellent point.  The Bible says -

2Ti 2:14 Of these things put [them] in remembrance, charging [them] before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, [but] to the subverting of the hearers.  
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.  
16 But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.  

It clearly says to study the scriptures so that you do not find yourself going down the wrong path.  If you find something in scripture, it will be verified by other scripture.  

1Pe 3:13 And who [is] he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?  
14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy [are ye]: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;  
15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:  
16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.  
17 For [it is] better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.  
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:  

Here we find it said that we should be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks us why we have hope in christ.  This verse is the essence of Young Earth Creationism.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 4:01 PM on May 16, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This shows me you are under the impression that facts speak for themselves.  Facts say nothing... facts are facts.
 Right, and the facts so far all support an old earth and the ToE.  Even creationist scientists saw this 200 years ago while looking for evidence of the Noachian flood (which they couldn't find BTW)
Isn't it interesting that Biblical creationists and Evolutionists have the same body of evidence.  Yet we come to such very different conclusions.
 Very strange until you consider the fact that creationists are able to blind themselves at will.  If they don't agree, it don't exist.  The ability to lie like a used car salesman is handy as well.  Not to mention a lack of education (these are the fleecers bread and butter)
This is because we both interpret the evidence through the lense of our pre-suppositions and worldview.

The only one with presuppostions is the creationists.  You go on and on about the dogma of evolutionary theory, then in the very  next breath you say how science can't be trusted because the theories are constantly shifting and changing as new data is discovered.  In case you're a total idiot, this is the opposite of dogma!
 If you hold the evolutionary paradigm, you have committed to interpreting everything you see with the distinct exclusion to any supernatural influence.  It's not surprising then that your conclusions and interpretations arrive at the same end.

Apparently gup-bot is stuck on "repeat" here.  Science, by definition, excludes the supernatural.  It cannot be tested or observed, so it is outside the realm of science.  That is why creationism is not and never can be science.

Lets say that the YEC position is 'increasing in answers' to the questions evolutionists have been posing since Darwin.

As OR pointed out, YEC aren't increasing anything.  They respond to scientific findings by trying to deonounce them.  That's it.

Let me clue you in - the private schools I went to had to take standardized tests every year (something that 'public schools' don't have to do) to insure that the education level is within public standards.  Every single year, our SCHOOL AVERAGE was in the 95th percentile or higher... meaning that only 5 percent of schools in the nation were at that level of education.  

In the meantime public schools keep passing people on who didn't pass the grade.

So then, someone like G. W. Bush comes along and creates the 'no child left behind' program making it mandatory that our children have learned their studies before they advance to the next grade.  What a novel concept that is!  It's not that the educational standards are dropping, my friend, its that there are now academic standards at all (whereas there have been none in the past).

Oh? so education in america is improving, is it?
going
going
gone

Why do you use arguments proven wrong 6000 years ago?  (when people were there to observe all these things)


Verification?  Oh yeah, don't need any.  Sorry, I forgot.

In fact, we do have a cohesive theory.  If you wish to read the theory in it's entirety, go to this website.  It is the online version of a book written on the subject.  Just read the first 11 chapters to get the entire picture of YEC.

Thank you gup.  This is why creationism is a religion, not a scientific study as you and your buddies at AiG insist.

I am advocating the end to the anti-christian, anti-creation policies

Anti-christian?  I'm tired of gup declaring that christians are persecuted in America (must be a christian past-time, declaring persecution whenever you can't have your way).  Here's some sites for you gup:
atheism discrimination
more christian persecution complex


If we came about by evolution then we set our own rules - we choose the morality that suits us - we choose the values that suit us.  It's all dependent on what we want - there are no absolutes.  We set our own rules

Why?  If evolution is right, then people, (who've been around a lot longer than the bible) have been getting along fine for the past 100,000 years.  Also, why do non-christians have morals, if the only reason we don't run around killing each other on sight is because of the bible?  If anything the bible gives people excuses to kill each other and be immoral.


Every time a religous freedom is encroached upon, we get further away from the moral base that lets great countries like ours (the USA) succeed in democracy and freedom.  Outlaw prayer in schools, outlaw the teaching of the Bible or creation in schools and you get moral decay.

You do know that the U.S. is one of the most religous countries in the world, right?  It's also one of the most violent.  Look it up.

(Edited by TQ 5/16/2004 at 7:44 PM).

(Edited by TQ 5/16/2004 at 7:49 PM).
Keep trying to fix broken link.  I give up if this doesn't work

(Edited by TQ 5/16/2004 at 7:55 PM).


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 7:42 PM on May 16, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let the trumpets blare - there is one who gets it!!


Thanks for the fanfare and all, but I doubt I'm the only one who has noticed this point.

I would adjust your argument to say that Man is not at the top of the Pile, God is at the top of the Pile and we are here to serve Him.

This is why arguments with creationists and evolutionists never seem to go anywhere... the real argument is between christianity and humanism. The science is pretty much the same.


No Gup, the science is very definitely not the same. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. “Creation science” is a hodge-podge of reactionary views, constructed to mirror the accepted style of mainstream science.

The argument is between Christianity and Humanism? No, the argument is between fundamentalism and reason. Don’t try dress your viewpoint up behind the guise of Christianity- you are not in a position to speak on behalf of the majority of Christians.

OR: So despite all its forced intellectualism, this is what the ye-creationists are fighting for and desperately cling too.

While chalked full of inuendo and jibe,


I’m glad you noticed it, because it is not there by accident.

I wouldn't argue the underlying premise. Young Earth Creationism exists to promote and demonstrate the inerrancy and authority of scripture and ultimately promote a personal choice to accept Jesus Christ.


No Gup, Christianity does that quite well enough. So where does that leave ye- creationism.

The Bible says that God created man on Day 6, as a separate creation from all else. The only thing made in the image of God. We are not 'on about' man coming from apes becuase it offense our sense of superiority. To say such perpetuates the lie that you are coming so close to exposing. We do so to defend the Bible as ultimate truth, as God's word and He are one.


Once again, don’t paint ye-creationism as carrying the sword for Christianity as a whole.

Then we would certainly see a return to the moral foundation of the Bible. It would once again hold a place of authority. What a great day that would be for God, and for the USA.


What about the rest of the world? Don’t they get a look in? What about all the people of other faiths’ who are citizens of the USA?

We would end our downward trend toward moral collapse that will eventually be the destruction of freedom in the USA. How would that change science and technology? It wouldn't - as I said before - most creation scientists go on doing their work unincumbered by the fallicies of evolutionary thought (for the most part anyway).


No, instead they are encumbered by the fallacies of ye-creationist thinking.

It would however have an impact on the hearts and minds of the people. Many would no longer have the crutch of humanism to hold them back from accepting the truth in the Word of God that they need a savior - that they need Jesus.


I guess all those people of other faiths don’t get a look in after all.

Crime would decrease, prosperity would increase along with peace and joy. The world would be a happy place again for supermodels an beauty pagent contestants.


Sounds like a book I read once………. Oh yes, Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Isn't it interesting how the more sin and death one experiences, the less 'naive' one becomes? Just as Adam and Eve did in the garden of Eden. Just as America has experienced over the last 60 years. Think back to the 1940's. Would you describe those Americans as naive? Is there an innocence about them? Why do you suppose that is? More sin, and less foundation on the principles of the Bible which is the blueprint for happieness and life - not just biological life but 'zoe' life - the life that includes happiness and peace. The 'God kind of life'.


If you care to define what you mean by the USA experiencing more sin over the last 60 years we might be able to discuss it.

It's not a leap from homosexuality to beastiality. These are subsets of the same sexual perversion.


And that is wherein the problem lies. Ever heard of guilt by association? You extol all these virtuous statements but seem to have no appreciation for the way that they colour people’s views. I don’t see you putting bestiality alongside greed, or adultery, or breaking the speed limit when you drive (If you actually put more effort into convincing the world to drive carefully and save people from serious injury and death, you may get taken more seriously). Did you not just say all sin is equal?

The fact is certain “sins” are singled out for an awful lot more attention than many others. And this is plain, unabashed prejudice at work.

Evolution is Humanism - therefore there is a natural emnity between humanism and christianity. Always has been.


The enmity exists between reason and fundamentalism, not humanism and Christianity.


(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/17/2004 at 12:44 PM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 08:07 AM on May 17, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gup, I'd be really interested to know why you think people going through one of the greatest wars in history were naive and innocent.  You do realize that WWII was occuring 60 years ago, right?

As OR has pointed out, the main goal of YEC is to declare a theocracy where only those deemed "good" have any rights.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 12:43 PM on May 17, 2004 | IP
godyag

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OccamsRazor, you had a good point a ways up there ... when you stated this:

More specifically, evolution etc. is taken as a direct attack on a perception of Man (I would use the term human, but here I'll stick with their choice of term) being at the top of the pile in some way.


I had never thought about it before: that the fundamental problem with an old earth for religious groups is that it denys the divinity of human beings.  An young earth is centered around the arrival and activities of humans, while an old earth does not.

Anyway, thanks for the insight.


-------
love,
godyag
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 1:06 PM on May 17, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[Quote from godyag:
I had never thought about it before: that the fundamental problem with an old earth for religious groups is that it denys the divinity of human beings.  An young earth is centered around the arrival and activities of humans, while an old earth does not.

Anyway, thanks for the insight.


Ah, glad the dialogue is of at least some use!


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 1:53 PM on May 17, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: Noachian flood (which they couldn't find BTW)

The evidence is everywhere, but you have excluded it due to your religious worldview.

TQ: Very strange until you consider the fact that creationists are able to blind themselves at will.

In fact, it is the Evolutionists who have intentionally excluded all possibilities from their theories.  

TQ:  The only one with presuppostions is the creationists.

Again, this is incorrect.  Evolutionists pre-suppose that the supernatural doesn't exist, as well as pre-supposing that the Bible isn't true and that the Bible isn't a real historical account.  

TQ:  It cannot be tested or observed, so it is outside the realm of science.

Evolution is also outside the realm of science according to this definition.  Millions of years cannot be observed.  Evolution cannot be observed.

TQ: Oh? so education in america is improving, is it?
going
going
gone


And is it any wonder?  Removing prayer and the Bible from school was indeed a death nail to our education system.  

On the other hand, if I take a look at the private school I went to, I see they are increasing in schoolastic averages and awards every year.  While the public schools in the same area go down the drain, they continue to be the model of excellence in education.  

TQ: You do know that the U.S. is one of the most religous countries in the world, right?  It's also one of the most violent.  Look it up.

Remember what I was talking about - how years ago we were more naive and innocent?  60 years ago, the biggest problem in schools was gum chewing and talking in class.  Now, our public schools have violence, guns, rape, oral sex in middle schools and junior high classes.  Why?  Take away the Bible and prayer from schools - start stripping entire generations of good morals and foundation in the Bible and what do you get?  Chaos, crime, imorrality.  

OR:  “Creation science” is a hodge-podge of reactionary views, constructed to mirror the accepted style of mainstream science.

So when creationists such as Russel humphreys do work on things like nuclear weapons, we should expect them not to work because he's a creationist and has tremendously strong creationist views?  If that is the case, why does he keep winning awards from secular scientists for his work?

OR: No, the argument is between fundamentalism and reason.

I agree... it is between fundamental humanism and the reason of science and scripture.  

OR:  you are not in a position to speak on behalf of the majority of Christians.

I belive in the Bible - I believe in Christ.  I am a christian.  I have had years of Biblical theology training.  I would say I am pretty qualified, moreso than you, to speak on the behalf of christians.

OR:  I’m glad you noticed it, because it is not there by accident.

Are you loosing your facade of pleasentry?  It was fun while it lasted, eh?

OR:  Christianity does that quite well enough.

So you are still claiming to be an expert on Christianity are you?  Perhaps you should let someone who believes in the Bible and Christ play that role instead.


OR:  What about the rest of the world? Don’t they get a look in? What about all the people of other faiths’ who are citizens of the USA?

Sorry, friend.  Those who do not believe in Jesus and accept salvation - those who say No to God - are going to hell.  It doesn't matter how good they are... how good of life they have led... how much they have or have not 'sinned'.  It doesn't matter if they believe in heaven or hell... it doesn't matter if they believe in creation or evolution... if they don't believe in Jesus, they go to hell.  That's the rules... I didn't make them.

The USA is a world leader.  We set the bar... we lead the way.  Whether it be to life or death, blessing or cursing.  

OR:  I guess all those people of other faiths don’t get a look in after all.

Nope they don't.  Sorry - truth is truth.  The only way to God is through Jesus Christ.  

OR:  If you care to define what you mean by the USA experiencing more sin over the last 60 years we might be able to discuss it.

LIke I said before - high schools see more guns, drugs, sexual immorality, sexualy transmitted disease, crime, etc these days then they ever saw 60 years ago.  Go ask your folks if they ever considered bringing a gun to their junior high.  Go ask your parents if they ever saw or participated in oral sex when they were in middle school (in the classroom no less).  Go ask your parents if there was anywhere near the crime when they went to high school as we see into today's high schools.  

Back before prayer and the Bible becan to be systematically removed from our education system, people believed in what it taught.  The majority of students professed a christian faith.  Nowadays, I think the last time I saw a survey was that 4% of high school graduates in the public school system professed a belief in the bible.  It is clear to see the trend, and the reason for the trend.  

OR:  I don’t see you putting bestiality alongside greed, or adultery,...

In fact I rank homosexuality and beastiality in the same boat as greed and audultry.  The Bible speaks directly to those things.  

However the Bible speaks indirectly to speeding.  For example we can see that the Bible supports respecting authority and goverment.  

OR:  If you actually put more effort into convincing the world to drive carefully and save people from serious injury and death, you may get taken more seriously.  

I doubt you would take a creationist seriously no matter what he/she did.  Your paradimic worldview excludes accepting our view as a possibility, and that's all there is to it.  

godyag:  I had never thought about it before: that the fundamental problem with an old earth for religious groups is that it denys the divinity of human beings.  An young earth is centered around the arrival and activities of humans, while an old earth does not.

So how does this newfound inspiration effect our discussion?  What does this 'tell you' about creationists?
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 01:38 AM on May 18, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The evidence is everywhere, but you have excluded it due to your religious worldview

I've "excluded" the existence of a massive flood layer, composed of particles which are sorted by size (largest on the bottom, smallest on the top), which contains a mish mash of every creature that existed, all mixed together in random order, which covers the globe?  Funny how I missed that, isn't it?

In fact, it is the Evolutionists who have intentionally excluded all possibilities from their theories

Ah, the old "I'm rubber you're glue" gambit.

Evolutionists pre-suppose that the supernatural doesn't exist



Once more gup.  Science, by definition does not study the supernatural.  It is not quantifiable, not observable.

as well as pre-supposing that the Bible isn't true and that the Bible isn't a real historical account.  

And again, the bible does an accurate job of discrediting itself in this regard.

Millions of years cannot be observed.

The evidence of those millions of years can be observed.

Evolution cannot be observed.

If it can't be observed, then why has it been observed?
observed evolution

And is it any wonder?  Removing prayer and the Bible from school was indeed a death nail to our education system.

Strange how this seems to be more a problem in the US, isn't it?  Especially since it's one of the most religous countries in the world.

On the other hand, if I take a look at the private school I went to, I see they are increasing in schoolastic averages and awards every year.  While the public schools in the same area go down the drain, they continue to be the model of excellence in education.  

And which school is this?  Which standardized tests did you take?  You'll understand of course that I don't believe a word you say.

Take away the Bible and prayer from schools - start stripping entire generations of good morals and foundation in the Bible and what do you get?  Chaos, crime, imorrality.

Strange, those are all things found in the bible.

So when creationists such as Russel humphreys do work on things like nuclear weapons, we should expect them not to work because he's a creationist and has tremendously strong creationist views?  If that is the case, why does he keep winning awards from secular scientists for his work?

Gup, this is precisely what Joe was trying to get through your head.  Creation "science" (ie "the bible is correct in every detail!  Let's find some proof to back this up!") is bad science.  That does not mean that someone who holds these beliefs is a bad scientist in their respective fields.  For example, Andrew Snelling has published some well received geology papers.  How were they published?  Simple-they were well done.  As opposed to his attempts at "creation science".

I agree... it is between fundamental humanism and the reason of science and scripture.

I sense an S.S.C conspiracy rant coming on...

I belive in the Bible - I believe in Christ.  I am a christian.  I have had years of Biblical theology training.  I would say I am pretty qualified, moreso than you, to speak on the behalf of christians.


Great, I'll let the pope know you're speaking for the catholics then, and that he's out to lunch.  You can let the rest of the christians know that you and your crack pot "science" are now the norm for christians the world over.

So you are still claiming to be an expert on Christianity are you?  Perhaps you should let someone who believes in the Bible and Christ play that role instead.

OK, then you keep your nose out of scientific matters.  Nice to see you follow the whole "humbleness" part of christianity.

Sorry, friend.  Those who do not believe in Jesus and accept salvation - those who say No to God - are going to hell.  It doesn't matter how good they are... how good of life they have led... how much they have or have not 'sinned'.  It doesn't matter if they believe in heaven or hell... it doesn't matter if they believe in creation or evolution... if they don't believe in Jesus, they go to hell.  That's the rules... I didn't make them.

You know, the sad part here gup is that you don't realize right now someone somewhere is saying the same about you...

The USA is a world leader.  We set the bar... we lead the way.  Whether it be to life or death, blessing or cursing.  

War or poverty, violence or bigotry.  Yep, lead the way!

Go ask your parents if they ever saw or participated in oral sex when they were in middle school (in the classroom no less).  

And what was the teacher doing?  Do you actually have any details on this?  Probably not...  As for the rest, once again, strange how this seems to be more of a US problem, isn't it?


Your paradimic worldview excludes accepting our view as a possibility, and that's all there is to it.

Actually, the complete lack of evidence makes me consider you wrong.  Your arrogance and ignorance (a very scary combination) don't help your position any either.

So how does this newfound inspiration effect our discussion?  What does this 'tell you' about creationists?

This is where the "arrogance" part comes in.



-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 02:38 AM on May 18, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup20 wrote: So when creationists such as Russel humphreys do work on things like nuclear weapons, we should expect them not to work because he's a creationist and has tremendously strong creationist views? If that is the case, why does he keep winning awards from secular scientists for his work?


Well, here is one of the classic approaches used by creationists to buy credibility- “I am a talented person well regarded in my chosen profession, I am a creationist, all my opinions must be reasonable in any matter I care to comment on”.

Now, I don’t know Mr. Humphery’s, or the details of his work, but I’m sure he is very competent in his field (he better be for all our sakes!). I will give you a like example I have experience of. One of my uncles is an Engineer who worked on aero-engines for Rolls-Royce, a company of international renown, for 30 years (ish!). He was a leading figure in the development of the Gem engine that powers the Westland Lynx helicopter (see link Rolls-Royce Gem turbine ). After this, he spent 5 years as an engine consultant for Alfa Romaeo’s defence sector. After semi-retiring he continued to work on civil engineering projects for a further 5 years.

Now, while my Uncle is quite talented in the field of turbine engine design, it does not mean he is correct by default if he wrote a book called “Young Earth Creationism for Enginners”. The same applies to Mr. Humphreys.

I belive in the Bible - I believe in Christ. I am a christian. I have had years of Biblical theology training. I would say I am pretty qualified, moreso than you, to speak on the behalf of christians.


Ah, but I’m not trying to speak on behalf of Christianity as a whole. I may use viewpoints of various Christians from time to time, as suits the moment.

Are you loosing your facade of pleasentry? It was fun while it lasted, eh?


I assure you Gup, the pleasantry is no façade, but like you I indulge in an acerbic comment from time to time

So you are still claiming to be an expert on Christianity are you?


That line of attack did not work on Joe, and nor will it work on I. If you want me to put a question to an expert I can do so and supply you with an answer in due course. I can still hold an opinion, particularly when based upon the balance of my personal experience, just like you.

Perhaps you should let someone who believes in the Bible and Christ play that role instead.


Perhaps you should leave it to those of us with a knowledge of Evolution etc. to comment on how old the earth is?

Sorry, friend. Those who do not believe in Jesus and accept salvation - those who say No to God - are going to hell. It doesn't matter how good they are... how good of life they have led... how much they have or have not 'sinned'. It doesn't matter if they believe in heaven or hell... it doesn't matter if they believe in creation or evolution... if they don't believe in Jesus, they go to hell. That's the rules... I didn't make them.

Nope they don't. Sorry - truth is truth. The only way to God is through Jesus Christ.


If you so wish.

The USA is a world leader. We set the bar... we lead the way. Whether it be to life or death, blessing or cursing.


One of the first things that an Officer Cadet learns in any military is that authority brings the burden of responsibility onto the holder.

LIke I said before - high schools see more guns, drugs, sexual immorality, sexualy transmitted disease, crime, etc these days then they ever saw 60 years ago. Go ask your folks if they ever considered bringing a gun to their junior high. Go ask your parents if they ever saw or participated in oral sex when they were in middle school (in the classroom no less). Go ask your parents if there was anywhere near the crime when they went to high school as we see into today's high schools.


I would do, but they are both dead so I will have to pass on that one I’m afraid. I imagine the answer would be the same as mine from my schooling two decades previous- no in both instances. Still, I don't know anyone who has related such a view to me, ever.

Back before prayer and the Bible becan to be systematically removed from our education system, people believed in what it taught. The majority of students professed a christian faith. Nowadays, I think the last time I saw a survey was that 4% of high school graduates in the public school system professed a belief in the bible. It is clear to see the trend, and the reason for the trend.


I always read survey results with a healthy amount of scepticism.

In fact I rank homosexuality and beastiality in the same boat as greed and audultry. The Bible speaks directly to those things.

However the Bible speaks indirectly to speeding. For example we can see that the Bible supports respecting authority and goverment.


I applaud your even handiness. Still, we don’t see images like this one from Massachusetts outside every divorce hearing when adultery has been involved do we?



I doubt you would take a creationist seriously no matter what he/she did.


I assure you that is quite untrue. For example, I take Mr. Humphery’s ability in his professional field quite seriously indeed. I wouldn't even dream on trying to tell him he had misinterpreted the fundementals of shock hydrodynamics (for example), or indeed other branches of science associated with nuclear weapon design and manufacture. I don't think you would either (notice a contrast with how ye-creationists view the work of old earth scientists?).

Your paradimic worldview excludes accepting our view as a possibility, and that's all there is to it.


The only thing standing in “your” way is the production of a viable explanation in accordance with the evidence seen today.


(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/18/2004 at 11:42 AM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 07:03 AM on May 18, 2004 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.