kkolodsick wrote:
I find it funny how evolutionists can stand on science today but call science from "those" days observation.
You can't have it both ways.
I see a clock and look at the inside and I just know that there is a clock maker.
As several people have pointed out, simple observation is not science. Simply because something is called science, in this case 'the Earth is flat', does not mean that that conclusion was reached using the scientific method. If we erased all of our scientific advancement to this day, and any of us walked outside, we would probably reach the same conclusion because thats all we could observe. However, we know now that the Earth is not in fact flat, we've given it very precise measurements, people have been into space and seen that it is, in fact, round. Science has given us very plausible reasons as to why the Earth (and every large celestial body) should be spherical and not, say, square shaped. Science today is much more advanced than it was 500 years ago, and the scrutiny applied to new ideas is much more intense. In short, 'the Earth is flat' is about as scientific as your watchmaker analogy (which I suppose was more of a philosophical comment anyway).
kkolodsick wrote:
Why is it so hard to believe, or at least entertain the though that there is a maker of the earth?
Creation is real my friends sorry to burst your bubble.
I entertain the thought, but as yet I have seen no compelling evidence to support the existence of any kind of higher being. In fact, most of the evidence I've seen in my admittedly short life has shown that if anything, there is no guiding force of any kind. How about you. Why is it so hard to believe, or at least entertain the thought that evolution brought us here? You seem quite sure that it didn't, and that the entire universe was created 6000 years ago by an omnipotent but strangely absent higher being, who also caused a book to be written commanding worship of him/it. Have you seen any evidence for this line of events? Would you care to share it with us? I do not mean to insult your faith in any way, but one cannot bring faith to a scientific argument if one wishes to remain impartial.
kkolodsick wrote:
The thought they they believed in mutiple gods is already an affirmation that they too concluded that as they looked out into the world, they knew there needed to be a maker. Earliest recorded history records a creation story. The scriptures and the Koran record a creation event. There are thousands of scientist today that believe that these pre-Christ guys were right.
I think you are confusing 'recorded history' with myth and story. Lets think of this logically, recorded history means someone was around to record it. When the Earth was supposedly created, there were no people around. Ergo, it cannot be recorded history. If we then assume that God told someone to write this stuff down, we are leaving the world of science, as we would be making assumptions that cannot be tested in any real way. The general consensus today is that many of these creation stories are simply methods of explaining a world that could not be explained in any other way. This, to me at least, is much more plausible (when you consider simple human sociology and psychology) than the alternative.
kkolodsick wrote:
The idea that something as complex as man could come from a one celled organism that just happned to come to life by mistake (big bang) is ludicrous, not scientific. It is fantasy, not science.
Have you read the science behind these events? Did you understand it? I have tried to read some of the technical explanations behind the big bang theory, and after 2 minutes my eyes crossed and I passed out. It is a mistake to assume that just because we, with the current state of our science cannot prove with all certainty what happened billions of years in the past that those events are impossible. I would also point out that it is meaningless to invoke science in calling the theory of evolution and the Big Bang 'ludicrous' and 'fantasy', and then turn around and tell us that creationism is what
really happened, with no more proof than the bible.
kkolodsick wrote:
You're right there is no proof of either God (Creation) or evolution. In my mind there is a preponderance (sp) of evidence to Creation therefore my faith. I have only quoted scripture once in these threads to back up my stance that God is jealous, else it has been my own words.
Science can and has been proven wrong throughout the years but no one ever can prove the Bible to be wrong. You may disagree as to its origins but...
I have not seen any credible evidence supporting the creation myth. In my arguments with Wannabe_tank_whore I have had cause to read many creation science websites, and they all seem to spend most of their time trying to discredit the vast majority of science that goes against creation. Radiometric dating, geology, species dynamics, evolutionary theory, evidence from almost every aspect of modern science all point to creationism being little more than a story. When they do present evidence to support Biblical events, it tends to be the same kind of evidence that they spend the rest of their time discrediting (I.E carbon dating shows this object to be x amount of years old, which is how old the bible says it should be. But when carbon dating is used to show an object is older than ~6000 years, all of a sudden carbon dating is unreliable. I'm using carbon dating as an example, and a poor one at that in this context, but you get my point).
However, you are right in that the Bible cannot be disproven. This is because the Bible describes events that are supernatural in nature, and are therefore untestable in any way we currently understand. This is the strength of science and the weakness of religion in my eyes, if a scientific theory is incorrect or flawed it will eventually be discovered and corrected through testing and research, history has shown us as much and will almost certainly continue to do so. With religion any errors or flaws are simply brushed off with supernatural or untestable explanations, and those flaws are perpetuated.