How many of you believe in Young Earth Creationism? (myth, prophecy, contradictions)

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

Of course...I personally have "great faith" that Earth REALLY IS around 4 1/2 Billion years old. And I don't need "science" to tell me it's older than 6 Thousand...common sense suffices for that. Heck...we have living trees over half that age!

Really Gldn? Are you sure it is faith that tells you that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that there are trees that are thousands of years old (oldest known tree is over 5,000 years) or is it the evidence of science that tells you these things?

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Really Gldn? Are you sure it is faith that tells you that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that there are trees that are thousands of years old (oldest known tree is over 5,000 years) or is it the evidence of science that tells you these things?

Well...the Earth being 4.5 Billion years old takes more faith then trees that are thousands of years old...since we can directly examine trees in current time and count the growth rings.

I just go by what the "experts" have told us. But who knows for sure? The Earth could be 1 Billion, or could be 50 Billion.
That 4.5 Billion info might end up like Pluto as a planet...and they find out later they were wrong. Does it REALLY matter anyway?

Hey...ya remember that famous "Human Evolutionary Progression" picture? The one that started with the Little Ape, to the Bigger Ape, to the next knuckle-dragging kinda-human creature, to the Neanderthal caveman with the club, to Cro-Magnon man, to Modern Man? LOL!
There were a jillion of those made, I'm sure.
That's what "science" used to teach as I was growing up... it was considered (and taught) as FACT...for quite a while. You know...you were taught the same thing.
Greater knowledge of DNA, RNA, and Gnome-mapping has brought us beyond that...to what we now feel is a greater understanding.
But, who knows?...maybe that is just until they find out they are wrong about that too...and give us the latest "facts".

Like I said before, many times...ya gotta have "faith".
EVERYTHING is merely "belief"....belief that the "facts" you're given is based upon accurate information...because it may not be...it's all fallible.
Some things are "easier" to have faith in, of course.

SO..."Keep the Faith" sans!!

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

Well...the Earth being 4.5 Billion years old takes more faith then trees that are thousands of years old...since we can directly examine trees in current time and count the growth rings.

I just go by what the "experts" have told us. But who knows for sure? The Earth could be 1 Billion, or could be 50 Billion.
That 4.5 Billion info might end up like Pluto as a planet...and they find out later they were wrong. Does it REALLY matter anyway?

Hey...ya remember that famous "Human Evolutionary Progression" picture? The one that started with the Little Ape, to the Bigger Ape, to the next knuckle-dragging kinda-human creature, to the Neanderthal caveman with the club, to Cro-Magnon man, to Modern Man? LOL!
There were a jillion of those made, I'm sure.
That's what "science" used to teach as I was growing up... it was considered (and taught) as FACT...for quite a while. You know...you were taught the same thing.
Greater knowledge of DNA, RNA, and Gnome-mapping has brought us beyond that...to what we now feel is a greater understanding.
But, who knows?...maybe that is just until they find out they are wrong about that too...and give us the latest "facts".

Like I said before, many times...ya gotta have "faith".
EVERYTHING is merely "belief"....belief that the "facts" you're given is based upon accurate information...because it may not be...it's all fallible.
Some things are "easier" to have faith in, of course.

SO..."Keep the Faith" sans!!

You simply contradicted yourself in these two sentences. Faith is belief WITHOUT evidence. What you seem to be suggesting is that anything that we believe without 100% certainty is by definition based on faith. This is simply not the case. If it were so, one could claim that everything is faith-based, which it is not. Many things we believe based upon previous experience and knowledge of how things work. For example, I don't merely have faith that the chair I'm sitting in will withstand my weight. I've sit in this chair before, and I am fairly knowledgeable about the construction of chairs. Can I be certain that the mechanism which holds the chair won't fail? Of course not, but I don't not need to exercise "faith" every time I go to sit in this chair.

Much the same can be said for the majority of what we believe, including how and when the Earth was formed, the Big Bang, and evolution. Wonderfully, science allows us to be confident in these conclusions, but also is open to new information which can contribute to modifying or discarding these conclusions. Religion does just the opposite. Religion asserts a conclusion and then attempts to find evidence to fit. If conflicting evidence is provided, then the evidence is discarded, but the conclusion stands.

I do see that Ham's fallacious claim of Historical Science has given hope to those desperate to hold onto those conclusion in light of the overwhelming conflicting evidence.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by Ceist

Are you serious?

Two words: George Zimmerman

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

Well...the Earth being 4.5 Billion years old takes more faith then trees that are thousands of years old...since we can directly examine trees in current time and count the growth rings.

We can directly examine the various layers of rock strata to show how old the earth is - almost in the same way we can examine tree rings.

The evidence for an older earth is overwhelming - which is why YEC is a fringe movement, a sort of cultish subset of Christianity.

Originally Posted by GldnRule

I just go by what the "experts" have told us. But who knows for sure? The Earth could be 1 Billion, or could be 50 Billion.

Or it could be 4.5 billion just like the experts say it is. Once again, I charge the case of "special pleading" onto those who decide to be suspicious of or reject outright the scientific evidence of a 4.5 billion year-old earth. I make that charge because most of us are NOT so suspicious of science UNLESS it bumps heads with scripture and then - all of the sudden - science is questionable. Why should we be so skeptical about the age of the earth and not be skeptical about every last scrap of information we've ever been told - INCLUDING religion? I think it is the definition of absurd to question the tangible, demonstrable facts of geology and cosmology simply because a book written before there even was science contradicts that evidence. Are we really back to the idea that Satan went around burying fossils?

Originally Posted by GldnRule

That 4.5 Billion info might end up like Pluto as a planet...and they find out later they were wrong. Does it REALLY matter anyway?

The whole Pluto issue was a semantic one, not a scientific one.

Originally Posted by GldnRule

But, who knows?...maybe that is just until they find out they are wrong about that too...and give us the latest "facts".

This is a very old argument - and it is as fallacious now as it was when it was first used. Once again, why is science questioned only when it contradicts scripture? What this tells me is that science is not being rejected because the science is wrong - or even that it might be wrong. Instead, science is being rejected just so certain people can cling to benighted belief systems; they are too emotionally invested in the Bible for it to be proven wrong, so they will kick, scratch, fight, and claw at science in an attempt to suppress it in favor of their myths and legends.

It really comes down to the idea that science actually does get it right - and whether or not evolution or the Big Bang must be tweaked and altered to incorporate new discoveries does not make science wrong or untrustworthy. What would you rather science do? Emulate religion and ignore new discoveries so that we can go around being willfully ignorant?

Originally Posted by GldnRule

Like I said before, many times...ya gotta have "faith".

I really don't think religious faith is the same thing as what you're talking about. Religious faith is a belief without evidence - it is a belief that religion has the Truth (capital T) and therefore scientific discoveries cannot make it wrong (even when it actually does, in reality). That's not the kind of "faith" one has in the veracity of science. We feel that science has the truth (small t) in that we will accept something as being true until such time that it is proven false. We don't treat science like religion - science is supposed to be changing, and if it ever stopped changing, it would just cement itself into unchanging dogma. e

Originally Posted by GldnRule

EVERYTHING is merely "belief"....belief that the "facts" you're given is based upon accurate information...because it may not be...it's all fallible.

I hardly think that we'll ever discover that the moon really is made out of cheese or that the sun is a giant lump of coal or gravity doesn't exist or *ahem* the earth is 10,000 years old. Some things are far more fallible than others - and some things are understood well enough that the odds of it being completely and totally wrong are so small as to not even be worth considering. Evolution and the Big Bang are two such examples of that which is understood on a strong enough basis that I'm willing to accept them as the best explanations for their respective events.

Originally Posted by GldnRule

SO..."Keep the Faith" sans!!

I keep the faith in the garage next to the lava lamp.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by Shirina

When the scientific community announces that something is a "theory," it means that it has reached the very top of the "fact" pyramid. It means that evolution IS a fact for all intents and purposes - and while, yes, it will require tweaking and adjusting here and there as we make new discoveries, but confidence in the truth of evolution is so high that the tens of thousands of scientists who work on these projects are in agreement.

Oh, and with computer modeling, science actually can recreate such enigmas as The Big Bang and put it through the ringer. That's one of the advantages of science - the evidence is there for everyone to see. I don't have to rely on someone else telling me they talked to God last night as evidence. Yes, as a scientific layperson, I often do let the scientific community explain to me what the evidence is. But if I really wanted to, I could conduct my own experiments and see the results for myself.

You can't do that with faith, per se ... at least not with religious faith. It's impossible to view religion objectively.

That's 100% untrue. If it cannot go through the scientific method it is not a proven fact. That is the reason for experimentation, hypothesis, procedures and results. The fact is, we cannot recreate the big bang, which is why cannot be a fact. It is not a matter of simulation. It has to be an actual occurrence with the same results every time, which means new life would have to be created as a result. It can be widely accepted but it is not an infallible theory. Doesn't matter how many agree with it, that doesn't make it right. Your logic is basically stating because everyone agree it must be true. Well that didn't work when theory of the earth being flat was out there.

Originally Posted by Shirina

I completely agree. Science will likely never be able to explain the "why" of a lot of things. The trouble is that the human mind has a very difficult time accepting the concept of chance, luck, or randomness. Our brains scream and kick, and rebel against the idea of chaos. This is one of the major reasons why a God is so attractive to a lot of people - God replaces "chance" and provides a "why" to an otherwise meaningless event. It is precisely the reason why many creationists cannot accept the idea that we're here by chance. There MUST be a reason, a why, a meaning to all of this. Except there doesn't have to be a reason. Our minds work very hard at finding order in chaos; it is why we see faces in random things or bunnies in the clouds.

So while yes, I agree that science will never be able to explain certain things - but the origin of the universe and such ... nah, those will be explained by science.

That's your opinion. Just like you are saying things happen by luck or chance is your opinion, while I say that something could be designed for a purpose. Either way, we have a belief of something that we cannot prove. I cannot prove to you, that there is a higher being that allows these things to happen for an intended purpose and you cannot prove that these things happen on mere chance. I think we should accept the fact, that we have different views on topics like this and move on. Some people sit there and belittle others on this thread, just like they have done to me, just because they do not agree, but most aren't seeing the big picture. We cannot prove this one way or another. We were not there at the beginning of creation.

Originally Posted by Shirina

Do you understand that if we have to be an eyewitness to everything that we know, humanity would still be living in caves struggling to light a fire? Because it would be impossible to hand knowledge down from one generation to the next. Historical records would be meaningless, discoveries in science that we ourselves didn't see would have to be rediscovered with every new generation - I think you get the point.

That's why the "you weren't there to see it" argument doesn't really work. I would guess that 99% of everything that I know, I learned second hand. A teacher, a book, a television documentary, a lecture, a presentation - that's how we learn and how we pass along our knowledge. If the census says that the population of Tokyo is 30 million, do you feel you have to doubt that number unless you go to Tokyo yourself and count everyone? I'm betting that most of what you know, you were not there to see happen.

Which means, of course, that the "you weren't there" argument is just another example of special pleading. Because we don't need to be there to witness every singular event on earth to believe that those events occurred - but when it comes to The Big Bang or evolution, suddenly we have to physically see the universe "bang" for it to have validity.

Do you know that we as people, are fallible? We are not perfect, we miss information, we have biases, we misinterpret, miss the observation of key points and many other things that can affect the accuracy of what is given. Let me put it like this? Do you believe everything the news reports? It takes faith to even believe what is being reported because again you weren't there.

The problem with what you are doing with my statement is you are generalizing it and making it seem as though because I say that about everything that I do not see, that I must not believe anything unless I see it. That is not what I am saying at all. For example, I can sit there and have my wife tell me that there is traffic on the highway and I believe her because I know her, I trust her and I know she would have no reason to lie to me. But for someone that I have not met, I can't say I would have the same trust. I have even less trust in a scientist because it has been proven that their theories are not infallible.

It is my choice to believe who I want to, but believe them doesn't make them right. It is proof that makes a fact. Something doesn't become a fact just because somebody said it and everyone agreed, it has to be proven.

Constantly there are scientific theories that have been debunked. That is why we do not accept things as scientific facts until they have been tested and re-tested and yield the same results. The problem with evolution or the Big Bang is we do not know the origin of it, which is why everything related to it, should be questioned. Perhaps there are elements of it, that are true, however, the origin of those things cannot be proven, which is why it takes faith for you to believe it, no matter how many scientists agree. If that's what you believe, then that's your choice, but you cannot tell me that something is a fact but you cannot recreate, retest it or even explain it's origin. I am not telling you that creation from God is a fact, because I cannot prove it, I am telling you I believe it based on evidence presented and based on my faith in God. That doesn't make me right or wrong, because you or anyone else can prove that to be a fact or not a fact. Same thing applies to the Big Bang.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

The big bang theory has nothing to do with evolution....You also do not seem to understand what a scientific theory is... A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it.

Then where did we evolve from? Did we just magically appear?

Can you truly test the Big Bang? There may be elements of it that has been tested, but unless you produce the same results from testing it, it's not a fact. I didn't say it wasn't a theory though, I think you need to re-read what I said.

Originally Posted by sanspeur

If you have evidence to dispute the theory of evolution, please produce it....You would be the first, and you would be famous world wide.

Real simple, what created evolution? Has it been proven? Can we create evolution over again and produce the same results?

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Of course there are...If everything was explained there would be no need for science. On the other hand creation explains nothing.That is not exactly true....We know little about the beginning of life, but that is not what this thread is about...It is about evolution for which there are museum loads of evidence all over the world making being there unnecessary...As a matter of fact there are many instances of plants and animals evolving today that can be observed.

You should not accept evolution and talk about it being valid until you address where it started and what it came from, that is at least my thought process. The problem you are going off the assumption that evolution happened and it came from somewhere, while I do not believe it because there is no definitive explanation of it origin. I don't think there ever will be unless we are able to recreate evolution. It hasn't been done, so it's pretty hard to believe it to be a fact. If we as people cannot reproduce it and recreate it, what does that say about our origin? Does it say that evolution didn't happen? Does it say that perhaps a deity created us? Everything is questionable until you have drawn a clear starting point.

I mean you can explain evolution, but then when somebody ask you, well how did we get placed on this earth? How was the earth created, then how do you explain those things?

[mensaguy]

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

Then where did we evolve from? Did we just magically appear?

Can you truly test the Big Bang? There may be elements of it that has been tested, but unless you produce the same results from testing it, it's not a fact. I didn't say it wasn't a theory though, I think you need to re-read what I said.



Real simple, what created evolution? Has it been proven? Can we create evolution over again and produce the same results?



You should not accept evolution and talk about it being valid until you address where it started and what it came from, that is at least my thought process. The problem you are going off the assumption that evolution happened and it came from somewhere, while I do not believe it because there is no definitive explanation of it origin. I don't think there ever will be unless we are able to recreate evolution. It hasn't been done, so it's pretty hard to believe it to be a fact. If we as people cannot reproduce it and recreate it, what does that say about our origin? Does it say that evolution didn't happen? Does it say that perhaps a deity created us? Everything is questionable until you have drawn a clear starting point.

I mean you can explain evolution, but then when somebody ask you, well how did we get placed on this earth? How was the earth created, then how do you explain those things?

One discovery that pretty much discredits the YEC is the existence of the Neanderthal. Remains have been discovered that are 45,000 years old. That goes WAY beyond the 6,000 to 10,000 age of the earth that the YEC believers like to cite. The DNA of the Neanderthal only varies from modern humans by 0.3%, making it pretty conclusive that humans evolved from Neanderthals. There. That's where we evolved from.

It says absolutely nothing about how, where, or when evolution started, but it doesn't really matter. It shows clearly that evolution has been going on for at least 45,000 years. You can even see it more directly in modern humans. On average, humans are taller than they were just a few hundred years ago.

There is no need to recreate evolution. It is going on all around us. We don't have a starting point, but we don't need one to prove that evolution has taken place, and that it continues to do so. The inability to explain how the earth was created in no way invalidates the fact that evolution happens.

There are a number of medicines that exist because of the understanding of evolution. Some materials are known to change their chemistry over time, making vaccines possible. So, yes, we can observe evolution in action.

Sadly, Mr. Rifleman is no longer with us. He was great at explaining evolution in words non-scientists could understand. A lot could be learned by searching this forum for his posts.

[Unsettomati]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

I just go by what the "experts" have told us. But who knows for sure? The Earth could be 1 Billion, or could be 50 Billion.
That 4.5 Billion info might end up like Pluto as a planet...and they find out later they were wrong. Does it REALLY matter anyway?

No one was ever wrong about Pluto being a planet. 'Planet' is a subjective classification. The arbitrary definition of 'major planet' was simply changed. There is no objective definition of a planet, merely a (mostly) agreed-upon one. There is an objective definition of a year.

PS - Pluto is still classified as a planet: a minor planet. Your scientific illiteracy is considerable.

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

That's 100% untrue.

Sorry, but it is 100% true.

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

If it cannot go through the scientific method it is not a proven fact.

I don't know, then. Perhaps you should go public and announce that you have uncovered a massive global conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of scientists who are claiming things are factual without using the scientific method. That would fundamentally change the scientific world and cast a pall of doubt over any new findings for decades ...

OR ... it just could be that you're misinformed.

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

The fact is, we cannot recreate the big bang, which is why cannot be a fact. It is not a matter of simulation. It has to be an actual occurrence with the same results every time, which means new life would have to be created as a result.

Here, you're just moving the goal posts around. You don't like the idea of science recreating the Big Bang using mathematical models, so you simply "disqualify" mathematical models and insist that the only way to know for certain is to actually witness the Big Bang.

That's a little like the absurdity of me doubting your existence because I wasn't there to see your birth.

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

It can be widely accepted but it is not an infallible theory. Doesn't matter how many agree with it, that doesn't make it right. Your logic is basically stating because everyone agree it must be true. Well that didn't work when theory of the earth being flat was out there.

No one said it was infallible, but reconsider the context in which this discussion is being had. This is about Young Earth Creationism - and you don't seem all that eager to challenge THAT infallible theory. Why would that be?

Also, no my logic has nothing to do with the "appeal to popularity" fallacy. It has everything to do with evidence. What evidence is there for YEC? None. In fact, in order for YEC to be true, we have to ignore evidence. We have to invent bizarre tales like Satan burying fossils to get around the fact that the overwhelming scientific evidence does not support YEC.

I do not think for a nanosecond that we'll ever wake up to the news that everything we ever knew about geology is wrong - therefore, YEC is back on the table. Sorry, but no. I agree that science is not infallible, but that only means it will need tweaked and adjusted. It doesn't mean that an entire scientific discipline is going to be 100% wrong.

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

That's your opinion. Just like you are saying things happen by luck or chance is your opinion, while I say that something could be designed for a purpose.

Well, actually, how the brain works isn't really my opinion, but I'll let that one go for now. Again, there is no evidence for a designed purpose so there is no reason to believe there is one.

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

Either way, we have a belief of something that we cannot prove. I cannot prove to you, that there is a higher being that allows these things to happen for an intended purpose and you cannot prove that these things happen on mere chance. I think we should accept the fact, that we have different views on topics like this and move on. Some people sit there and belittle others on this thread, just like they have done to me, just because they do not agree, but most aren't seeing the big picture. We cannot prove this one way or another. We were not there at the beginning of creation.

I was fine with all of that - BUT - just because something cannot be proven false doesn't mean we have to accept it as being potentially true. That's part of the critical thinking process. In that sense, even if there is a higher being, that doesn't mean I have to accept YEC as being potentially true or that the Bible (to the exclusion of all other creation myths) has the right of it.

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

Do you know that we as people, are fallible? We are not perfect, we miss information, we have biases, we misinterpret, miss the observation of key points and many other things that can affect the accuracy of what is given. Let me put it like this? Do you believe everything the news reports? It takes faith to even believe what is being reported because again you weren't there.

This is why there is a lot of redundancy in science - with hundreds, sometimes thousands of people working on and evaluating various scientific propositions. It isn't just one guy in a basement lab telling the world about the Big Bang. The more people conducting the same experiments and coming to the same conclusion, the more likely it is to be the truth. Note - that is NOT the same thing as appealing to popularity.

As for the news, that's not a very good comparison because the news is deliberately biased with some networks leaning left, others leaning right - and considering news is a for-profit endeavor, news outlets will say whatever makes them the most money. Science doesn't work that way.

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

The problem with what you are doing with my statement is you are generalizing it and making it seem as though because I say that about everything that I do not see, that I must not believe anything unless I see it. That is not what I am saying at all. For example, I can sit there and have my wife tell me that there is traffic on the highway and I believe her because I know her, I trust her and I know she would have no reason to lie to me. But for someone that I have not met, I can't say I would have the same trust. I have even less trust in a scientist because it has been proven that their theories are not infallible.

Several things here to deal with.

First of all, you say you'll believe your wife if she says there is traffic because you know your wife and trust her. Does that mean you'll believe everything she says no matter how outlandish the claim? What if your wife knows there is traffic only because she watched the news - and you just said how unreliable the news is, right? But you might not even know she gleaned her traffic info from the news, therefore, you might be trusting in the news as the source of your wife's knowledge. Do you even ask your wife where she got her information? Unless she is omniscient or some kind of clairvoyant, she is getting her information from somewhere ... and likely, that source is *ahem* infallible.

Secondly, what you're essentially doing here is judging the message by the messenger - judging the book by its cover. Because it is a scientist you do not know, then the science itself becomes suspect, which just isn't the way to critically think. That sets YOU up with a bias - a bias against information given to you by people you don't know. And I just demonstrated to you how even people you DO know aren't necessarily any more trustworthy than anyone else. There's a better chance of you being misinformed by a friend or familiy member than there is by a random person - especially if that person is a well-respected scientist.

Thirdly, your last sentence suggests to me that you think your wife is infallible simply because you know her, but scientists (and by default science) is fallible because you don't know them. Why not critique the actual information instead of relying on something as unsubstantiated as the "I don't know you therefore you can't be believed" hypothesis?

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

It is my choice to believe who I want to, but believe them doesn't make them right. It is proof that makes a fact. Something doesn't become a fact just because somebody said it and everyone agreed, it has to be proven.

First, that doesn't mean that, while I wait for the definitive proof, I have to accept every idea as equally plausible. As such, just because science hasn't pinned down the origin of life doesn't mean I have to contend that a religious or superstitious explanation is just as plausible as a naturalistic and scientific explanation.

Secondly, science isn't about a bunch of people getting together, talking about it over coffee, and then telling the world that "this is the way it is." No. What science does - it tests the evidence. Science is actually rather conservative because if someone opens their mouth too early, that scientist can lose all of his/her credibility. It is dangerous for a career to announce something as proven (or even likely) until that piece of information has been thoroughly vetted.

It doesn't matter if they can sometimes be infallible. Most of the time, science is pretty spot-on accurate. And the more we learn, the more we know, and the more we know, the more knowledge we have to bring to bear on current mysteries. Knowledge and science are pyramidal with new knowledge resting on the foundation of old knowledge. Therefore, it becomes less and less likely as time goes on that science is going to make such an egregious mistake as to render entire disciplines null and void. To suggest that YEC is even possible would require just that kind of egregious mistake. It isn't going to happen.

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

Constantly there are scientific theories that have been debunked.

No, I wouldn't say "constantly," and I'd be really curious to know which "theories" have been debunked that 95% of the scientific community agreed with. Sure, I've seen all kinds of theories be debunked, but they were almost always proposed by a few people and the hypothesis itself was frought with controversy. Very few, if any, theories (with the scientific definition of the word) have been utterly "debunked" as you put it.

In addition, just HOW were they debunked? Yeah ... with science. Strange how you'll accept science when it debunks itself, but when it debunks religious mysticism, suddenly science is the most fallible, least reliable thing on the planet. Rest assured that no "theory" has ever been debunked in favor of higher powers, magic, religion, or superstition.

And finally, why don't you count up the number of theories that have been proven true? If you're only going to point to the failures, you're only getting half the picture - and you're being intellectually dishonest. What you're doing is called "comfirmation bias," which is only accepting evidence that proves your pre-conceived conclusion.

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

The problem with evolution or the Big Bang is we do not know the origin of it, which is why everything related to it, should be questioned.

Science should always be questioned. That's what makes science reliable - people questioning it, testing it, verifying and re-verifying that a hypothesis actually works. Gee, if only I could say that much about religion and mysticism, maybe we wouldn't even have to deal with such crazy talk as YEC.

I really don't understand why you can believe so strongly that everything was designed for a reason and yet there isn't a shard of evidence for that - and it certainly hasn't been tested and verified. Why don't you hold your own impossible-to-prove belief in a higher power to the same exacting standard to which you hold science?

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

Perhaps there are elements of it, that are true, however, the origin of those things cannot be proven, which is why it takes faith for you to believe it, no matter how many scientists agree.

Yes, and those elements which are true is what makes the Big Bang and evolution the most likely explanations. There is actually evidence pointing to the veracity of the Big Bang and evolution whereas there is no (testable, verifiable) evidence for a higher power. That is why your idea of comparing religious faith with scientific faith doesn't add up. They are NOT equal in any way. You seem to think that following evidence and predicting a conclusion is the same kind of vaccuous and completely unsubstantiated faith required for religious belief in magical deities.

But when was the last time religion, mysticism, superstition, and magic was proven true to the exclusion of science? Can you give me even one example? Then why should I trust a "belief in a higher power" to be true now when it has never been proven true before?

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

If that's what you believe, then that's your choice, but you cannot tell me that something is a fact but you cannot recreate, retest it or even explain it's origin.

Hmm, are you so certain? Let's say you're walking down the street and notice thick, black smoke coming out of your neighbor's upstairs window. What do you do? Well, if you approached it scientifically, you would postulate that smoke equals fire and therefore you would take the appropriate measures to call the fire department and make a rescue if needs be. But if this scenario was approached using your logic, you would do nothing, paralyzed with skepticism, until you actually saw the flames. Even then, you would have to know precisely where the fire started, what caused it, how long it's been burning, etc. You would demand to know with certainty all of the particulars before deciding to finally take action - and in this case, "action" means accepting what science has to offer without a lot of undue skepticism.

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

I am not telling you that creation from God is a fact, because I cannot prove it, I am telling you I believe it based on evidence presented and based on my faith in God. That doesn't make me right or wrong, because you or anyone else can prove that to be a fact or not a fact. Same thing applies to the Big Bang.

I go by historical precedent. I believe that science will one day figure out all the nuances of the Big Bang, I believe that science will discover the origin of life (they're making a lot of breakthroughs in this field). I just won't be "tricked" into using the same "God of the Gaps" argument that people have been using for tens of thousands of years - and has never, not once, ever proven correct.

As I've said before - why would you bet on a horse that hasn't won a race in over 100,000 years? Because betting on religion and God and magic is doing precisely that. Fact is, one can believe in God and higher powers without having to reject science. I don't even understand the logic of doing so - unless you have a slavish devotion to an ancient holy book.

Now, consider this: IF everything is designed for a reason, as you assert, then why do you suppose science even exists? Why were we given an insatiable curiosity, the brainpower to pursue our curiosity, and a massive universe to be curious about? Do you think God has strewn about all of this fake evidence just to get a big kick out of watching us go down the wrong path? You should be considering the possibility that we are finding out the origins of life and the Big Bang because that's exactly what God wants us to do - that the universe was designed in such a way that we would find out the truth when we were ready to.

But instead, you seem to simply be rejecting science outright until it is proven 100%. It's like turning down a Ferari because it doesn't have a clock. Most of the pieces for evolution and the Big Bang are in place. But like a puzzle, I don't need to fit in the last piece before I can identify the picture.

(And that's my really loooong post for the day. Take care.)