[StratComm]

Am I the only one who has seen this thread go literally in a complete circle from about page 13-14? I mean, i've kept up with this topic - interesting reading and all - and Charis made a long list of assertions about 10 pages ago, after which Kara, Aldo & the rest of you lads responded with clear & concise explanations/corrections. And yet, around page 13-14, Charis made the exact same assertions as if he didn't even bother to read the explanations/corrections laid out so carefully for him. Forgive me if this might  be the wrong conclusion to come to, but doesn't that imply that Charis is either not reading half the responses - thereby invalidating half the entire arguement - or simply being so close-minded as to render any attempt at correction or persuasion utterly futile?

Again, forgive me for coming to such a bleak conclusion, but the past 5 pages have effectively been a complete repeat of the 5 or so before that [excluding the spam], so either we should just give up on Charis [and the ever-so-elusive ZmaN], or we should 'pause' the discussion for a few days to give the poor blighter a respite to catch up on reading the rest of the thread, thereby giving him the opertunity to compose a much more coherent arguement that doesn't repeat the same old crap again and again and again. Seriously, i'm going to start beating my head on my Computer desk if he keeps on with his misinterpretations of practically every field of evolution [& beyond], like his baffling belief that the Big Bang theory and Abiogenesis somehow enters into the general Theory of Evolution!

It would really be better for all concerned if responses were formed from the end of the thread rather than trying to sequentially parse things.  If he keeps doing it the way he has been, Charismatic is propogating an exponential growth in the number or replies he has to face.  Were he to start at the end, he could at least make tractible progress towards addressing the things most on peoples' minds.

[karajorma]

Try reading the entire thread first then go back and answer things. It is better that you understand as much as possible before answering.

IMO there is no difference between what the word recipe or blueprint means.

Actually there is quite a large difference between the two. If I had the blueprints of your house I could point to a random window and say "Inside that room, 3 metres from the door you'll find a socket." If however I have your recipe for raisin cake I can't say "5cm in and 10cm down you'll find a raisin."

That's what I mean by the lack of a 1 to 1 mapping. You can make blueprints from a house or a house from the blueprints but you can only follow a recipe in one direction.

I'm not saying you are wrong in the point you were making. I am just pointing out how the english language is what will cause the misconception.

It will help though once you have listened to the reason why you should change

[Charismatic]

Ok i read page 7+8. Il start 9 later tonight. Im gona be buzy for the rest of the day untill later at night, so see ya all then. This is all i have time for now.
NO i have not had time to visit the links or watch the shows linked to me yet. Firstly i have to read everything. Then il visit links. SOrry for the inconvinence.[

Well, it sure does seem like it's a fight that needs to be fought by now. At first I was just hoping it would die down once people realized the inherent sillyness of the whole thing, but here we are still. If this thing sticks, then what next? Renaming all the days since they've got 'heathen' names? Surely any good christian can't be caught uttering names based on the nordic gods.
Im big on greek myths. I know some of the stories, i have a few books. Their cool and fun to read, about Zuse (Sp? lol i cant beleive i cant spell that name) and Herculies (my spellin is ****) etc.
Of course, over a long time frame, evolution (ironically...) will sort it all out. The people who deny science will be mostly stuck with what they have, and those who embrace it will move on. Give it a couple of millenia and the first group will be effectively in the stone age compared to the second

The problem is that the inherent silliness of it all is based on what sound like common sense, even sound arguements - that is, until you actually learn the most basic bit about the subject. Because they've succeded in both attacking scientific teaching and mischaracterising evolution & life (the use of 'obvious design' and 'chance' to describe biology here being a clear example of that misinformation in action), they've worked to soften the ground for creationism. It's a strategem that aims to posit the 'debate' (when on a factual, educated perspective there simply is no debate) by systematically lying about the alternative, in order to strengthen a shoddy position. We've already seen both Zman and Charismatic give reasons that are based on badly-done and faulty research (performed purely to try and claw some results to support creationism), and which are disproven both by weight of scientific evidence and common sense (the Great Flood managing to sort pollen and plant specimens in disparate climatological groups?), but because someone has crammed it into them, they're unwilling to actually look at the evidence with a rational, scientific eye.
Ok, for once, that is totally incorrect. God did not command Noah to take the plants or pollin (species etc). Only his family and the animals. He sure as anything, did not go and take all the plants into the arc (except for food), and did not seperate them into disparate climatological groups. Where do you get That idea from?
Any plants that surivived the flood may have re-rooted and lived on. There sure was a good deal of seeds\pollin ect mixed up in everything, so id say, if the plant surivived the 40days of rain, it would be able to repopulate again. There were enough plants to feed the animals, as the world's supply of plants were all swept up in the flood and dispersed all over, there were tons of it and the plants were larger then they are today.
 It's not unlike getting someone who knows no maths atall, and telling them that pi=3 because it's in the bible, and that all the myriad of figures directly proving that wrong are all aetheist lies(as an aside, there are actually a fair number of ancient civillisations even predating the bible that had a more accurate value of pi). But if you begin rejecting all the evidence for evolution, then you reject the methodology involved. and then you reject all science, and this computer becomes magic, and we all go back to living in caves and praying for lightning to hit dry bush so we can sit by a fire.

I'm enjoying the thread. It's been a long time since HLP hosted a good Evolution vs. Religious-Nonsense-Posing-As-Science Thread.

Ok dude, thats offensive. We were haveing a good argument, without cutting at the other persons side like that, until you did that. What the hell man? A bit discrimitory.

towards addressing the things most on peoples' minds.

Please list what is on peoples minds.

[aldo_14]

[q]Ok, for once, that is totally incorrect. God did not command Noah to take the plants or pollin (species etc). Only his family and the animals. He sure as anything, did not go and take all the plants into the arc (except for food), and did not seperate them into disparate climatological groups. Where do you get That idea from?[/q]

That's not what I said (although you do add another point; the flood would have wiped out all plant life, which i'll get to below).  My point was, the proposition was that the flood had sorted all fossils etc into sediment layers.  The problem is, fossilized pollen and plant life clearly indicates distinct climates on distinct strata, so for that to work whatever action that created those strata would have to actually sort down pollen and plants not just so they were grouped together in temporal order, but also climatological.

The only way for that to happen is by the old-earth theory (a reason why it's the accepted one, really), or by God doing it Himself.  And in the latter case, why would God create a geological record that expressly contradicts the bible?

[q]
Any plants that surivived the flood may have re-rooted and lived on. There sure was a good deal of seeds\pollin ect mixed up in everything, so id say, if the plant surivived the 40days of rain, it would be able to repopulate again. There were enough plants to feed the animals, as the world's supply of plants were all swept up in the flood and dispersed all over, there were tons of it and the plants were larger then they are today.[/q]

Ok, firstly you need to cite evidence of larger size.  you also have to account for something which springs to mind, that the ocean covers the vast area of the world.  IIRC the explanation creationists offer for the lack of observable channeling from such drainage is that the ocean floors formed after the flood (this is contradicted by ocean sediment dating, which I mentioned a few pages back), the problem is that any draining via the ocean would take a massive amount of plant matter with it; probably all.  Also, you'd end up with severe food problems even if the plants were dispersed; plants in the wrong habitats (dying) for example, or species left trying to eat plants that they simply couldn't survive upon (such as koalas and eucalyptus).  you'd also have to address the problem of insects that act in a mutually beneficial way acting as pollinators for specific plant species (and also explain how you'd get plants requiring pollination deposited sufficiently close to each other and those supporting insect species).

Plants also require specific established soil types to grow; these would have been eroded by the flood.  If the flood deposited the strata as suggested, it'd also mean most if not all seeds would be deposited too deep to grow.  Also salt water is lethal to many plants, so you'd have nowhere near the modern diversity.  And lets not forget; the flood lasted longer than 40 days; the water lay for 150. 

There's also no indication of a global flood in tree ring dating (for an example, one of the oldest known living trees is a Bristlecone pine - it's over 10,000 years old - so you'd be able to expect to find evidence if there was a global flood).

[q]Ok dude, thats offensive. We were haveing a good argument, without cutting at the other persons side like that, until you did that. What the hell man? A bit discrimitory.
[/q]

ID is religious nonsense posing as science, that's kind of the crux of the arguement; it's a religiously motivated attack upon science because it contradicts the bible.  It just so happens that the previous bits of this reply are addressing young-earth creationism, as an attempt to show that you simply can't read the bible as a literal history due to some rather obvious scientific and historical contradiction.

[Charismatic]

[q]Ok, for once, that is totally incorrect. God did not command Noah to take the plants or pollin (species etc). Only his family and the animals. He sure as anything, did not go and take all the plants into the arc (except for food), and did not seperate them into disparate climatological groups. Where do you get That idea from?[/q]

That's not what I said (although you do add another point; the flood would have wiped out all plant life, which i'll get to below). My point was, the proposition was that the flood had sorted all fossils etc into sediment layers. The problem is, fossilized pollen and plant life clearly indicates distinct climates on distinct strata, so for that to work whatever action that created those strata would have to actually sort down pollen and plants not just so they were grouped together in temporal order, but also climatological.
Hmm..
The only way for that to happen is by the old-earth theory (a reason why it's the accepted one, really), or by God doing it Himself. And in the latter case, why would God create a geological record that expressly contradicts the bible?

[q]
Any plants that surivived the flood may have re-rooted and lived on. There sure was a good deal of seeds\pollin ect mixed up in everything, so id say, if the plant surivived the 40days of rain, it would be able to repopulate again. There were enough plants to feed the animals, as the world's supply of plants were all swept up in the flood and dispersed all over, there were tons of it and the plants were larger then they are today.[/q]

Ok, firstly you need to cite evidence of larger size. you also have to account for something which springs to mind, that the ocean covers the vast area of the world. IIRC the explanation creationists offer for the lack of observable channeling from such drainage is that the ocean floors formed after the flood (this is contradicted by ocean sediment dating, which I mentioned a few pages back), the problem is that any draining via the ocean would take a massive amount of plant matter with it; probably all. Also, you'd end up with severe food problems even if the plants were dispersed; plants in the wrong habitats (dying) for example, or species left trying to eat plants that they simply couldn't survive upon (such as koalas and eucalyptus). you'd also have to address the problem of insects that act in a mutually beneficial way acting as pollinators for specific plant species (and also explain how you'd get plants requiring pollination deposited sufficiently close to each other and those supporting insect species).
Good point. Kudos.
Plants also require specific established soil types to grow; these would have been eroded by the flood. If the flood deposited the strata as suggested, it'd also mean most if not all seeds would be deposited too deep to grow. Also salt water is lethal to many plants, so you'd have nowhere near the modern diversity. And lets not forget; the flood lasted longer than 40 days; the water lay for 150.

There's also no indication of a global flood in tree ring dating (for an example, one of the oldest known living trees is a Bristlecone pine - it's over 10,000 years old - so you'd be able to expect to find evidence if there was a global flood).
Id like to know more about this. Can you link some pics or w\e please.
[q]Ok dude, thats offensive. We were haveing a good argument, without cutting at the other persons side like that, until you did that. What the hell man? A bit discrimitory.
[/q]

ID is religious nonsense posing as science, that's kind of the crux of the arguement; it's a religiously motivated attack upon science because it contradicts the bible. It just so happens that the previous bits of this reply are addressing young-earth creationism, as an attempt to show that you simply can't read the bible as a literal history due to some rather obvious scientific and historical contradiction.

He sure as hell was not talking about ID. It was not being discussed ATM, then. He was makeing fun, in a discriminatory way, of Christianity. To that i took offence, as stated.

[Ghostavo]

Christianity poses as science?

You misinterpreted him then...

[aldo_14]

[q]
Id like to know more about this. Can you link some pics or w\e please.[/q]

I got the date wrong, actually; it's about 4,700 rather than 10,400 (the latter is the feet of altitude it lives at - I know, terribly stupid mistake for me to make - the majority of flood dates AFAIK put the flood at happening after this and the oldest trees' 'birth', though).  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pine gives some general info.  This page - http://www.rmtrr.org/oldlist.htm - gives some info on the oldest trees.

Fortunately, I don't look a total arse because we can still test the rings of dead trees, which can be matched back about 10,000 years (by comparing the overlapping ring patterns of living trees against dead trees, and then against other dead trees, etc, we can trace back - Dr. Charles Ferguson of the University of Arizona went back to 6273BC doing so, for example).  Tree ring dating can be traced back, unbroken, by 11,000 years in this way.  The history of the 'King Clone' creosote bush in the Mojave desert is about 11,700 years old (this reproduces by a sort of 'cloning', hence the name and how the age can be traced back); it's been suggested a creoste bush in Palm Springs is even older, but I don't know if that's been proven yet.  We also have fossilized (from volcanic action) forests that date to 19,000 years ago.

It's worth noting that the rate of tree ring generation can vary.  On average, it indicates a tree age 5% younger than the actual age.  Fortunately tree ring dating for the likes of the Bristlecone is well studied and documented.  For reference, a flood situation such as the great flood would create a significant climatological change that would be represented in a change in the tree-ring thickness in any trees lucky (incredibly lucky, because they'd be uprooted and buffeted against all kinds of stuff) enough to re-root somewhere.  Upright.

[q] He sure as hell was not talking about ID. It was not being discussed ATM, then. He was makeing fun, in a discriminatory way, of Christianity. To that i took offence, as stated.[/q]

Perhaps of your literal young-earth interpretation, and that at the very most.  But I very much doubt it was directed at the religion itself.

[Charismatic]

I just dont understand the level of disrespect and posturing that goes on in these threads. If someone errors, cant correction come in more diplomatic termand not synical remarks and mockery?

Perhaps I should point out that ZmaN accused everyone of being seduced by Satan's lies in his first post on the thread. How calmly would you take such a comment?

I agree that there is no need be be insulting but that applies equally to both sides.
When have i insulted? I beleive i have kept my head and been calm mostly for the entire debate (With the happy exception of Crayz Ivans post)

The saddest thing about this thread is that it really is obvious that Charismatic and ZmaN simply don't understand evolution, but more importantly, don't want to understand evolution. And it sounds as though it's not necessarily because you've looked both over, pondered the evidence, and made a decision. It's that you've been taught to think that way. It is essentially exactly what people who support ID to want.

In a way I can't blame them. It'd be like if somebody one day were to start trying to argue to me that little gremlins make lights glow. Obviously I'd dispute and respond with theories about electrons. But really, I'd just be going by what I'd been taught - I personally haven't done an experiment on the scale of an electron.

But I guess at the same time, you have to look at who's supporting Evolution and why. It's chiefly scientists and learned. people. Meanwhile, the people who support ID are mostly Christians. The mere fact that there are so many opinions on what, exactly, Creation is should be a warning sign right away.

I'll leave you with this bit of a comment, that I think was originally said by Thunder/Kalfireth awhile back. If God were to show up sometime in the early BCs, and to start dictating the bible to someone, would he spend the time on explaining stellar formation, genetics, geography, continental drift, molecular biology, etc etc and everything that goes into the scientific theories? Or would he just put it in simple terms that everyone could understand without requiring a lifetime of learning?

Personally I think it'd be the latter. The Bible is about how to live your life in accordance with God's plan, not to a science textbook.

Thats an interesting site. Nice to see a site that can acknowledge both current real science and the Judea/Christian faith. As fare as I'm concerned, I dont need science to validate faith, but I always like to stay on top of current scientific findings and research.

I just dont understand the level of disrespect and posturing that goes on in these threads. If someone errors, cant correction come in more diplomatic termand not synical remarks and mockery?

It's hard not to be cynical when such basic mistakes are not just being made but actually taught. We've seen this, what, 3 or 4 times by now - the same errors, the same basic mistakes, and the same unwillingness to listen. Yeah, it is a bit rude, and it is a bit of a turkey shoot, but to be frank I lost any sense of respect for that sort of intentional and willing blindness a long time ago and if an idea is stupid and idiotic I'm damn well going to say so.

I mean, we are talking about a thread where Zman posts some keyword, I have to look up what he actually (I presume) means by it, post why it's scientifically proven to be wrong with example sof the reasearch, and the response is
[q]Ill post the science pages when Im done with school.
And if youre asking why I havent posted it yet, its because i have a life beyond HLP..
And everything that was in the article I was gunna write is in the science book so theres no use in writing it. you can just read the pages yourself... Of course, youre gunna make up some other bullcrap "the books wrong, im right, your stupid!!!" kinda arguments. go ahead. Im ready for it..[/q]

Bullcrap. 200 years(+) of human endeavour, dismissed as 'bullcrap' because some bloody creationist propaganda textbook says so. Moreso, that book, I bet, will claim to 'prove' this using scientific results, and in effect aim to disprove something using the standards set by science, and having to actually break or ignore those standards in order to do so (such as selectively picking evidence to predetermine a conclusion, or ignoring contradictory proofs).

So yeah, maybe some of the replies have been rude, etc. But can you really blame people for getting pissed off? This genuinely threatens human progress - justnow it's evolution, and that might not seem to immediately disasterous for societal welfare, but just wait until it turns to things like medicine (where it kind of has begun to already) and we end up praying rather than getting prescriptions.
You yell at my ass for getting your fundamentals wrong, but yet you go on about wrong christian fundamentals. We beleive in healing by, A) God, supernatural means, physically, B) God, emotionally and internally, within ones mind\life, C) By Medicine and Doctors.

From, "Healing in the Name of God, Faith or Fraud?" By Ted Schwarz.
"(Page 21-22) Legitimate faith healers expect success yet reconize that they have no idea what shape the healing may take or when it may occur. They know tha God can grow anew hand on the arm of a machinist who lost it in an industrial accident, for example. They also know that God may choose to not do so, indeed seldom has done so, and that the machinist may go throught  life with a prosthesis instead. They see healing in three forums --- the miraculous we understand, the miraculous beyond comprehension, and the internal (Spiritual/Psychological) healing. A miraculous healing we understand involves medical knowledge used to cure someone of heart problems, cancer, or an illness such as pneumonia. We have learned to put togeather what might be considered the pieces of a puzzel---medication, a surgical procedure, in halation therapy, physical therapy, and all the other tools we have learned to help the body recover. We are wothking with GOds creation as we have learned to do, being allowed ina tiny way to share in his miraculous healing powers. (yadayada)
A miraculous haling beyond comprehension is the helaing that  ocurs whe 'irreversible' medical conditions are reversed. The person whose body is so wasted that death seems inevitable rallies, heals, and returns to normal life. The inoperable cancer goes into remission for so many years that the person dies from the ravages of old age, not from the disease. The malignant tumor on the long dissapeares. We witness the hand of God without human ivolvoement other then through faith expressed in prayer for the ill person.
Internal healing comes when the afflicted person finds peace with a life that may not be the kind he or she anticipated. (...skip ahead)However, Louise experianced a deep inner healing--an incomprehensible peace and aceptance of her illness. Her anxiety was replaced by joy that spilled over to everyone seh met. Her p ain is still very real; she copes with it every day. Bu GOds gracehas touched her so deepy that she lives with the pain and the degeenration of her body with grace and calm. People around her are amazed at her ability to be joyfull, mentally productive, and active in serving the Lord despite her severe illness. (yada yada)"
NB: i missed this earlier;

does anyone wanna explain, without using evolution, how there are many different races, all of which a directly descended from a single white (according to many religious paintings) couple? )I presume this is a quote?)


When a new generation was born, people went in different directions...
If you went where there was more sunlight, then you had darker skin..
Dude, its so possible...

So why are babies born black to black parents? And mixed-colour to mixed-race parents? Wouldn't changing skin colour (to be precise, the preservation of a skin colour change due to it having a natural advantage) in response to the environment, and then maintaining that skin colour across generations, even when the people have moved to different climates ala to the UK, be evidence of evolution?

Yes. Yes it would, and is. I believe the/a theory is that skin colour effects things like Vitamin D intake, and that lighter skin is beneficial in 'cold' areas as it allows greated Vitamin D intake from the reduced sunlight, whereas darker skin is advantageous in warm areas as it blocks Vitamin D, which can be toxic in high concentations (the initial darker skin evolution is possibly a response to the loss of hairy bodies, which in turn is IIRC likely due to the evolution of sweat glands that would soak hair and cause heating problems, etc). So not only does evolution address and predict such a change as a selected adaptation, science also provides a proper solid reason. Evolution also explains why we don't see white people who emigrate to Africa turn black overnight - or the converse - as evolution moves fastest in smaller populations where genetic changes are able to more rapidly propagate across that population.

In a way I can't blame them. It'd be like if somebody one day were to start trying to argue to me that little gremlins make lights glow. Obviously I'd dispute and respond with theories about electrons. But really, I'd just be going by what I'd been taught - I personally haven't done an experiment on the scale of an electron.

That's a fair point, but it has to be heavily tempered with the fact that science is peer-reviewed and transparent; the results and methodology are not just cross-checked, but published so they can be checked. It's also open to revisal, provided there is sufficient grounds provided (i.e. evidence gathered using the scientific method). whereas something like Id goes the opposite way, as we've seen already. Just look at that 'humans are closest to chickens' type quote going back to about page 2. Now, we're meant to take that on face value. But if you look into it, there is no supporting evidence provided, no basis given, and that extends beyond the usage of quoting what sounds like an explicit fact but turns out to be completely unfounded and have, literally, as much factual basis as me just declaring 'fish are bicycles'. And it's not as if the very proponent of that 'fact' hasn't been challenged to provide evidence, because he has - and has failed. I believe it was Gish, actually (Gish is an Id/creationist spokeperson masquerading as a scientist; from what i understand he's a pretty good orator who specialises in fault science and 'debates' with selectively picked opposition).

That's why I'm so confident this vaunted science book will be, to quote myself, a 'creationist propaganda textbook'; because everything Zman has put so far has been a sort of buzzword or set of buzzwords, with no elucidation (presumably because he has none - he just takes it at face value because the book does) or explanation, and where even the most basic cursory examination proves it (or rather, what you'd presume to be it, because 'it' is undefined) to be scientifically proven wrong and even delberately misleading or faked. And because each rubuttal receives no attempt to scientifically response, it implies to me Zman - or Charismatic - don't actually have any scientific understanding of the reason they give, let alone why it is copiously wrong. So we get that response quoted at the top.

It's frustrating as hell not to have any scientific debate here, but i guess inevitable because even a cursory understanding or wish to understand reveals how wrong the creationist theories are proven to be, so Id works very hard to make sure it's young proponents are unwilling to listen. But if the Vatican can not only allow but endorse evolution, I think that says a lot about theological validity - would God give us brains, free will, curiousity, rationality and not let us use them? I doubt it, even if I am an aetheist.
I have expressly stated several times i am willin to learn and listen and conciter what you guys are saying, which i am. Do not say incorrect statements like that please.

A thought just occurred to me, one that's actually quite fundemental to this argument and yet totally unrelated to science. Intelligent Design is invalid from a religious standpoint, provided one thinks it through.

If ID is in fact true, that is fundemental, irrefutable proof of God. But proof denies faith. Without faith, organized religion and God Himself are nothing. We have never been promised proof of His existance. Indeed, He wishes us to take Him upon faith alone, without proof. Faith is what will in the end save you. Faith is what you are asked to have; no more, no less.

Intelligent Design denies faith. And in denying faith, you deny God.

Who is the greater assault upon Christanity now?
Shivans.

[aldo_14]

[q]You yell at my ass for getting your fundamentals wrong, but yet you go on about wrong christian fundamentals. We beleive in healing by, A) God, supernatural means, physically, B) God, emotionally and internally, within ones mind\life, C) By Medicine and Doctors.

From, "Healing in the Name of God, Faith or Fraud?" By Ted Schwarz.
"(Page 21-22) Legitimate faith healers expect success yet reconize that they have no idea what shape the healing may take or when it may occur. They know tha God can grow anew hand on the arm of a machinist who lost it in an industrial accident, for example. They also know that God may choose to not do so, indeed seldom has done so, and that the machinist may go throught  life with a prosthesis instead. They see healing in three forums --- the miraculous we understand, the miraculous beyond comprehension, and the internal (Spiritual/Psychological) healing. A miraculous healing we understand involves medical knowledge used to cure someone of heart problems, cancer, or an illness such as pneumonia. We have learned to put togeather what might be considered the pieces of a puzzel---medication, a surgical procedure, in halation therapy, physical therapy, and all the other tools we have learned to help the body recover. We are wothking with GOds creation as we have learned to do, being allowed ina tiny way to share in his miraculous healing powers. (yadayada)
A miraculous haling beyond comprehension is the helaing that  ocurs whe 'irreversible' medical conditions are reversed. The person whose body is so wasted that death seems inevitable rallies, heals, and returns to normal life. The inoperable cancer goes into remission for so many years that the person dies from the ravages of old age, not from the disease. The malignant tumor on the long dissapeares. We witness the hand of God without human ivolvoement other then through faith expressed in prayer for the ill person.
Internal healing comes when the afflicted person finds peace with a life that may not be the kind he or she anticipated. (...skip ahead)However, Louise experianced a deep inner healing--an incomprehensible peace and aceptance of her illness. Her anxiety was replaced by joy that spilled over to everyone seh met. Her p ain is still very real; she copes with it every day. Bu GOds gracehas touched her so deepy that she lives with the pain and the degeenration of her body with grace and calm. People around her are amazed at her ability to be joyfull, mentally productive, and active in serving the Lord despite her severe illness. (yada yada)"[/q]

I think I answered this earlier, so you can reach that bit.

Is Ted Schwarz a doctor?  It strikes me to be at best pseudo science;

Anyways, I'm afraid you missed my point

The attack (and it is, it's not any sort of rational debate because they would lose) upon evolution is an attack upon basic scientific principles of observation.  You can see this in the way the ID camp misrepresents and cherry picks the data they need, ignoring contradiction from established research and dismissing rather than addressing very real problems in their 'theory' (hypothesis would be the correct scientific term).  If we allow that, then it opens up a pandoras box whereby any form of secular advancement is open to attack because we no longer value rationality and scientific observation.  Things like medicine, physics, etc all were developed using the same scientific medicine as established the theory of evolution; an attack upon evolution is thus and attack upon the basis for all scientific advancement.

[q]I have expressly stated several times i am willin to learn and listen and conciter what you guys are saying, which i am. Do not say incorrect statements like that please.[/q]

The problem is that you made several replies using points I or someone else had already addressed to be false, given reasons, etc.  That is very frustrating, because it makes us think we're being ignored.

[StratComm]

Im big on greek myths. I know some of the stories, i have a few books. Their cool and fun to read, about Zuse (Sp? lol i cant beleive i cant spell that name) and Herculies (my spellin is ****) etc.

That misses the point.  The point has nothing to do with whether you are fimilar with the Greek mythos or not (most people are, at least well enough to know who 'Zeus' and 'Hercules' are), but that you would consider making references to those names (of gods in a now dead religion) to be blasphemy to be as silly as we consider young-earth creationism (and really ID, since that's the one that carries a real threat to education and ultimately our scientific advancement) and not worth taking seriously.  It's a parallel, nothing more.

Ok, for once, that is totally incorrect. God did not command Noah to take the plants or pollin (species etc). Only his family and the animals. He sure as anything, did not go and take all the plants into the arc (except for food), and did not seperate them into disparate climatological groups. Where do you get That idea from?
Any plants that surivived the flood may have re-rooted and lived on. There sure was a good deal of seeds\pollin ect mixed up in everything, so id say, if the plant surivived the 40days of rain, it would be able to repopulate again. There were enough plants to feed the animals, as the world's supply of plants were all swept up in the flood and dispersed all over, there were tons of it and the plants were larger then they are today.

Out of context much?  Maybe me putting that bit about plants into one of my flood responses is paying its dividends if you finally stop to think about things.  Anyway, this has already been addressed to plenty of length by aldo so I won't harp on it more.  All I will say is that if you think plants can just float around for 3 months with no ill consequences, then I'll be happy to come levy up your yard and fill it full of brackish water until mid-July.  We'll see how much of that grass lives through that.

Ok dude, thats offensive. We were haveing a good argument, without cutting at the other persons side like that, until you did that. What the hell man? A bit discrimitory.

The Creationist/ID stance has long treated science with an abysmal attitude.  Attacks on the motivations behind it, attacks on the people doing the research, attacks on the methods.  And it's extremely discriminatory because it automatically assumes that science must be wrong.  All of it.  Because heaven forbid we hold science that doesn't conflict with a literal creationist viewpoint in a different light.

In reality, Crazy Ivan is calling a spade a spade with his comment.  There's no way creationism will ever be able to stand as real science because it is flawed so fundamentally and cannot get past those flaws.  Force it to stand on a scientific foundation, and it will collapse within seconds.

towards addressing the things most on peoples' minds.

Please list what is on peoples minds.

OUT OF CONTEXT!!!!!  The whole sentence is at least a nice place to start.

What I mean is that if you post from today's threads backwards, then you will respond to things most recently posted and, as a consequence, most recently thought about.  If you try to go back to page 6 and work your way forward, you're going to be quoting things that have little relevance to where the discussion is now as most have been discussed, debated and seemingly summarily ignored when you're formulating your response to that snippit on page 6.  I'll admit, that paragraph didn't state what it was intended to as lucidly as it could have, but you should have at least been able to figure out what I was trying to say.

EDIT: I give up trying to keep up with your color style, especially if there was some significance to your switching.  Orange blob now becomes white.

From, "Healing in the Name of God, Faith or Fraud?" By Ted Schwarz.
"(Page 21-22) Legitimate faith healers expect success yet reconize that they have no idea what shape the healing may take or when it may occur. They know tha God can grow anew hand on the arm of a machinist who lost it in an industrial accident, for example. They also know that God may choose to not do so, indeed seldom has done so, and that the machinist may go throught  life with a prosthesis instead. They see healing in three forums --- the miraculous we understand, the miraculous beyond comprehension, and the internal (Spiritual/Psychological) healing. A miraculous healing we understand involves medical knowledge used to cure someone of heart problems, cancer, or an illness such as pneumonia. We have learned to put togeather what might be considered the pieces of a puzzel---medication, a surgical procedure, in halation therapy, physical therapy, and all the other tools we have learned to help the body recover. We are wothking with GOds creation as we have learned to do, being allowed ina tiny way to share in his miraculous healing powers. (yadayada)
A miraculous haling beyond comprehension is the helaing that  ocurs whe 'irreversible' medical conditions are reversed. The person whose body is so wasted that death seems inevitable rallies, heals, and returns to normal life. The inoperable cancer goes into remission for so many years that the person dies from the ravages of old age, not from the disease. The malignant tumor on the long dissapeares. We witness the hand of God without human ivolvoement other then through faith expressed in prayer for the ill person.
Internal healing comes when the afflicted person finds peace with a life that may not be the kind he or she anticipated. (...skip ahead)However, Louise experianced a deep inner healing--an incomprehensible peace and aceptance of her illness. Her anxiety was replaced by joy that spilled over to everyone seh met. Her p ain is still very real; she copes with it every day. Bu GOds gracehas touched her so deepy that she lives with the pain and the degeenration of her body with grace and calm. People around her are amazed at her ability to be joyfull, mentally productive, and active in serving the Lord despite her severe illness. (yada yada)"

Funny, the only two "miracles" described there are 1) healing by modern medicine (easily explained without God) and 2) the power of the human spirit (which also does not require God).  But more telling is your source: from a quick Google search: Ted Schwarz is not a doctor.  He is an author, and a relatively prolific one at that, but he appears to write books based that sell rather than sticking with a particular genre.  (He does have a number of faith-based books, I'll concede, but that doesn't make him an expert on medical practices, results, or expectations for deadly and "incurable" diseases)  Whether he truely believes what he writes is not something I'm qualified to answer, but until he can show some evidence to back it up over mere assertion then he cannot say that science is invalid (nor does he in the paragraph you quoted; forgive me for not looking this one up in full).  Faith alongside science is fine, as long as the faith can adapt to new scientific relevations.  Quite the opposite of trying to supress science due to contradiction.

Ironically, the first thing that came up on the google search was something about the Branch Davidians (Waco, Texas) which doesn't suggest good things about the credibility of that source.

[Kosh]

Any plants that surivived the flood may have re-rooted and lived on.

To add to what Aldo said, a land plant would also drown. As I understand it land plants need air to survive.

[StratComm]

Any plants that surivived the flood may have re-rooted and lived on.

To add to what Aldo said, a land plant would also drown. As I understand it land plants need air to survive.

Doubly so.  They resperate to get CO2 out of the air for use in photosynthesis, and also draw their source of oxygen for matabolism from the air IIRC.  Denying them access to air for a prolonged period of time would result in them ceasing to function and eventually breaking down.  Seeds, admittedly, can live a while longer.  But salt would kill those pretty effectively even if they could survive in water.

[karajorma]

an attack upon evolution is thus and attack upon the basis for all scientific advancement.

Yep. If the ID people did win how long would it be before someone went after geology for saying that the world is more than 6,000 years old? Or astronomy for saying that there are stars older than that?

Thats why you'll find most scientists have a line in the sand attitude to letting attacks on evolution get through.

[Flipside]

Of course, considering the speed of light and the distance of stars, had the universe been created 6000 years ago, how come we can see light that has left stars that are several million light years away? Or is the Speed of Light and Red Shift side of science incorrect as well?

[StratComm]

You missed that.  God apparently created the light to make it look like the stars were millions of light-years away, when in fact the light itself is only 6,000 (no, 10,000.  No, 6,000.  10,000!  6,000!  Gah!!!) years old. 

Page 15, about a quarter the way down the page.  Second or third natively orange paragraph.  The lengths people will go to in order to justify the unjustifiable.

[Flipside]

Ah right, didn't see that. He's a joker that God isn't he? Pulling all these stunts with the physics of the entire universe just to confuse a few million people on a planet lurking in the spiral arm of a very average galaxy...

[aldo_14]

I thought the stars were all painted on a bit cylindrical thing that sits on top of the flat earth?

Tsch, i'm so out of touch.

[karajorma]

Get this, I actually asked one of these guys, OK, Dinosaurs fossils - how does that fit into you scheme of life? Let me sit down and strap in.
He said, "Dinosaur fossils? God put those there to test our faith."
Thank God I'm strapped in right now here man. I think God put you here to test my faith, Dude. You believe that?
"uh huh."
Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God.. might be.. ****in' with our heads? I have trouble sleeping with that knowledge. Some prankster God running around:
 "Hu hu ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha ha." [mimes God burying fossils] "I am God, I am a prankster." "I am killing Me."
You know, You die and go to St. Peter... "Did you believe in dinosaurs?"
"Well, yeah. There was fossils everywhere" Thuh [trapdoor opens] "Aaaaaaarhhh!"
"You ****in idiot." "Flying lizards, you're a moron. God was ****in' with you!"
 "It seemed so plausible, ahhhh!"
"Enjoy the lake of fire, ****er!"

Still miss Bill Hicks even now.

[Flipside]

hehehehe

The thing that sealed it for me was the fact that these massive distances in time work in both directions. For example, we know that in about 5 billion years time the Milky Way and M31 are going to collide. Admittedly, the effect of the collision will be minimal as far as we can tell, maybe 3-4 systems being effected in the entire galacy, according to current thinking, but it still makes me smile that God created his chosen people in a galaxy he's planning an enormous game of conkers with.

[Edward Bradshaw]

Admittedly, the effect of the collision will be minimal as far as we can tell, maybe 3-4 systems being effected in the entire galacy, according to current thinking, but it still makes me smile that God created his chosen people in a galaxy he's planning an enormous game of conkers with.