[_ Old Earth _] Should Science Speak To Faith?

[BobRyan]

Earthly witness? The wisdom of men?
The situation the world faces today and has faced in the past are those who put their faith in a higher authority.

You're not Christian are you?

You'll have to excuse me but I haven't visited this forum much at all and don't know the members who predominately post in here.

There is a "what do you believe" thread where a number of people have identified themselves as agnostic or atheist.

I think there are a few others that claim to be Christian that also post in favor of darwinian evolutionism.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

lol
The Dover trial isn't the Roe and Wade of I.D. or creationism.

Indeed the Dover trial is a case where blind censorship of the form "we will file suit IF you DARE to add a paragraph to an otherwise atheist darwinist propaganda course where you say in that one paragraph THERE EXISTS A BOOK IN THE LIBRARY... if in fact that book challenges atheist darwinist dogma".

The fact that such transparent censorship and restriction on academic freedom EVEN to the point of censoring "there EXISTS A BOOK in the library...".

I don't suppose you believe the miracles of Christ such as turning water to wine, healing the sick/infirm, feeding the multitudes, walking on water, raising the dead and above all His resurrection. If one does not consider these miracles as true then I suppose there's no basis to believe any other work on His behalf.

True and a number of posters here admit to being agnostic or atheist.

However as has already been pointed out -- the blind faith of atheist religionists promoting darwinism is in fact corrupting science with junk-science hoaxes and frauds in the form of rank fabrication.

data fabrication (fraud) in the case of Nebraska man.
Data fabrication (fraud) in the case of Simpsons 1951 horse series
Data fabrication (fraud) in the case of Neanderthal man age-dates.
Data fabrication (fraud) in the cause of Haeckles "Phylogony recapitulates ontogeny"
Data fabrication (fraud) the case of Piltdown man used to prop up the myths of Darwinism for 4 decades

At some point people need to "Wake up to the EVIDENCE" that atheist darwinism is PROVEN to be JUNK SCIENCE.

But can anything really dissuade a determined believer in atheist darwinism? Perhaps here is where science needs to speak to faith.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here is ID -- vs ATHEISM --

Intelligent Design:

Academic Freedom to [/u]“follow the data where it leadsâ€Â[/u] EVEN if it leads to a conclusion (such as Intelligent Design) that does not pander to the central doctrines and dogmas of atheists"

Real World Validation of ID as Science Fact.

ID theorists are just scientists that happen to be willing to admit to evidence for Intelligent Design when they find it in Nature. However this method of analysis is not limited to scientists open to “inconvenient facts†and willing to free science from today’s political bindings that demand conformance to the religious distinctives of atheism.

For example there are four fundamental forces in nature – the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, gravity and electromagnetism. Some electromagnetic wave forms show that they have been purposely manipulated – their pattern shows “Intelligent Design†– (hence TV, Cell Phones, Radio) and others do not (background noise, static). We have entire industries (security, National Security Agency etc) based on the obvious and reliable fact that it is possible to evaluate electromagnetic wave forms and determine if they convey coded information – content from intelligent designers.

ID theorists are doing the same thing as they accept the fact that physics and biochemistry are the baseline medium in which Biology is expressed.

The empty claim that nothing in nature can be studied and evaluated to determine if it has an intelligent cause is disproven every day in commercial and private sector analysis of the electromagnetic wave forms alone. Admittedly the study of the instances of design found in Biology is just beginning by comparison but it is based on the same fundamental principles of analysis. While allowing this form of scientific investigation in the domain of Biology is clearly taboo to atheist religionists it is nonetheless consistent with the existing science principle of analysis already in use in many other domains of scientific investigation and discovery.

[/quote]

Your definition of ID is yours alone.

Let's see - I am the one defending it -- you are among those wildly attacking it.

Are you claiming that some other defender of ID on this board has opposed the defintion above?

I have seen them approve and endorse -- never object or complain about it.

Rather the only ones that try to escape that definition so far are those who blindly attack ID to start with.

The point remains.

Bob

 

[MarkT]

Well there's no microscope or telescope we can use to look into the past. We know Genesis doesn't break any known laws of begettin. Kinds beget kinds. That's evident. Common descent breaks the known law. That's evident. So common descent is a belief; a common belief. But a common belief is still a belief.

 

[Patashu]

Well there's no microscope or telescope we can use to look into the past.

So if the murder had no witnesses it is impossible to determine whodunit?

 

[Deep Thought]

Well there's no microscope or telescope we can use to look into the past.

Modern telescopes can see back billions of years.

 

[Barbarian]

We know Genesis doesn't break any known laws of begettin. Kinds beget kinds. That's evident.

Genesis doesn't say kinds beget kinds.

Common descent breaks the known law.

There is no such law. And most creationists now admit that new species evolve. They can hardly deny it, since it's directly observed to happen.
'

That's evident. So common descent is a belief; a common belief.

More accurately, it is a conclusion based on the evidence. Would you like to learn about the evidence?

But a common belief is still a belief.

Let's test your belief. Ready?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Bob, I'm being to suspect you might be a version of Heidi that has evolved :

Your definition of ID is yours alone. Please don't keep repeating ad-infinitum as if it is a fact.

The fact that it is not yours is simply testimony to your interest in blindly following atheist dogma. That is transparently evident to all -- but thanks for sharing "again".

As for Heidi -- the terms of the service of this board are that no counterfeit to Christian faith may be suggested or promoted. So attacking Heidi for being Christian and holding to a Christian view of origins -- is not helping your case. Stick with trying to find actual science that supports atheist darwinism.

Hint -- your attacks on Heidi's faith is violation of TOS.

The fact that you consider that antic of yours as "something worth highlighting" testifies to the lack of thinking you are placing into that argument.

Suggestion -- stop and think before posting ad hominem.

Focus on the topic -- post substance.

Bob

Irony

 

[BobRyan]

Fact:

Atheist Darwinist Colin Patterson comes to a realization of fact and disabuses himself of just some of the storytelling he has been duped into believing.

Again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

Which brings us to the problem with this topic -- blind followers of atheist darwinism struggle with the problem of differentiating fact from fiction.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I'll wager there's more attorneys and more money being spent to prove evolution. Advocates of I.D. have a real struggle on their hands and the machinery of evolution is determined that the case for I.D. isn't heard within the court of public opinion.

True and the evidence is "in" that atheist darwinists pursue the political and court-wrangling pogroms as "tools" to silence those scientists that ARE "willing to engage in the academic freedom to follow the data where it leads EVEN if it leads to a conclusion in favor of design".

Here is scientist Wernher Von Braun writing to the California board of education in an attempt to disabuse them of the notion that the blind junk-science methods of atheist darwinists in trying censor academic freedom is simply "wrong headed".

Wenher Von Braun - 1972

The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.

…The scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design.

To be forced to believe only one conclusion-that everything in the universe happened by chance-would violate the very objectivity of science itself.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here is ID -- vs ATHEISM --

Intelligent Design:

Academic Freedom to [/u]“follow the data where it leadsâ€Â[/u] EVEN if it leads to a conclusion (such as Intelligent Design) that does not pander to the central doctrines and dogmas of atheists"

[quote:b82e8]

Real World Validation of ID as Science Fact.

ID theorists are just scientists that happen to be willing to admit to evidence for Intelligent Design when they find it in Nature. However this method of analysis is not limited to scientists open to “inconvenient facts†and willing to free science from today’s political bindings that demand conformance to the religious distinctives of atheism.

For example there are four fundamental forces in nature – the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, gravity and electromagnetism. Some electromagnetic wave forms show that they have been purposely manipulated – their pattern shows “Intelligent Design†– (hence TV, Cell Phones, Radio) and others do not (background noise, static). We have entire industries (security, National Security Agency etc) based on the obvious and reliable fact that it is possible to evaluate electromagnetic wave forms and determine if they convey coded information – content from intelligent designers.

ID theorists are doing the same thing as they accept the fact that physics and biochemistry are the baseline medium in which Biology is expressed.

The empty claim that nothing in nature can be studied and evaluated to determine if it has an intelligent cause is disproven every day in commercial and private sector analysis of the electromagnetic wave forms alone. Admittedly the study of the instances of design found in Biology is just beginning by comparison but it is based on the same fundamental principles of analysis. While allowing this form of scientific investigation in the domain of Biology is clearly taboo to atheist religionists it is nonetheless consistent with the existing science principle of analysis already in use in many other domains of scientific investigation and discovery.

[/quote:b82e8]

Your definition of ID is yours alone.

[/quote]

The problem with the devotees to blind atheist darwinism is that they struggle in determining the difference between atheist-storytelling-myth and fact.

Scientists have been arguing this case of "Science by DEFINITION" when it comes to DESIGN for decades.

Wernher Von Braun 1972 -- to the California State Board of Education

The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.

…The scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design.

To be forced to believe only one conclusion-that everything in the universe happened by chance-would violate the very objectivity of science itself.

And yet those blindly devoted to atheist-darwinist dogma will follow their rant against science in a blatant sacrifice-all attempt to defend atheist darwinism.

How sad.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Wernher Von Braun 1972 -- to the California State Board of Education

The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.

…The scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design.

Von Braun (not a scientist but an engineer, BTW) also thought that National Socialism was the wave of the future; he wasn't nearly as good a biologist or political scientist as he was an engineer.

To be forced to believe only one conclusion-that everything in the universe happened by chance-would violate the very objectivity of science itself.

Good example. Werner seems totally unaware that Darwin's great discovery was that it didn't happen by chance.

And yet those blindly devoted to atheist-darwinist dogma will follow their rant against science in a blatant sacrifice-all attempt to defend atheist darwinism.

Of course, no one who actually knows anything about Darwinism thinks it's atheistic. In fact, Darwin's last sentence from The Origin of Species:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

...makes it clear that Darwin attributed the origin of life to God. As usual, ignorance is the enemy, and creationism depends on ignorance to spread it's doctrines.