Having a child to save a child!?

[dprince]

I respectfully disagree. The universe had a beginning. Starting with the Science has rationally examined, has confirmed the Biblical view that the universe had a beginning. Science used to be dominated by the theory of uniformitarianism. Now, science completely rejects this and we know the universe had a beginning. Lucky guess or Creation? I'm open to hearing any other explaination of it. How then does a child get here? They are created, formed, shaped in their parents image.

How did you come to the conclusion that uniformitarianism has been rejected by science?

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/10c.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/history_12

It's actually a cornerstone of modern day geology.

How did you come to the conclusion that science confirmed the Biblical view that the universe had a beginning? :main_huh: Doesn't everything have a beginning? Doesn't common sense dictate that? :main_huh:

 

[Tony C]

But geology is wrong because it says the earth is more than 6,000 years old! :main_rolleyes:

 

[dprince]

But geology is wrong because it says the earth is more than 6,000 years old! :main_rolleyes:

:main_laugh: :main_laugh: :main_laugh: :main_laugh:

I knew I liked you, Tony. :main_thumbsup:

 

[hoppergirl]

My error.

Uniformitarianism is indeed the cornerstone of modern day geology. Darwin's theory of evolution is heavily based upon it. This is where our opinions differ. Creation Science provides clear evidence of a Biblical flood which is directly referred to in the Bible. A difference of opinion, many people choose to accept the studies and philosophies of research that has been around for a little over 200 years. But I choose to put my faith in the teachings of a Book that has been around for thousands of years and has yet to be universally disproven. Both have compelling arguements.

 

[herpencounter]

My error.

Uniformitarianism is indeed the cornerstone of modern day geology. Darwin's theory of evolution is heavily based upon it. This is where our opinions differ. Creation Science provides clear evidence of a Biblical flood which is directly referred to in the Bible. A difference of opinion, many people choose to accept the studies and philosophies of research that has been around for a little over 200 years. But I choose to put my faith in the teachings of a Book that has been around for thousands of years and has yet to be universally disproven. Both have compelling arguements.

Oxymoron! :main_laugh:

First of all... I love it when you claim all this that you show some evidence of it. :main_rolleyes:

So now I have to ask...

What evidence is there for a worldwide flood?

So you rather believe something because its older!?!?!
If that the case I am going to become a Hindu! :main_yes:

I was going to mention more, but I have to go.

 

[Sunrise Reptile]

What EXACTLY is the topic of the thread again? :main_rolleyes:

Some people choose to believe something. Even if you don't, don't belittle them because they do. :main_angry: Let's accept that we're different, get back on topic, and move on ... OK?

 

[Tony C]

What EXACTLY is the topic of the thread again? :main_rolleyes:

The topic was a practical application of genetic engineering, which progressed logically into a discussion of church/government interference in related research and development. I don't see anything wrong with the discussion, and I would hope anyone who chooses to get involved will be mature enough not to throw a fit when their beliefs, or lack thereof, are questioned.

 

[herpencounter]

Some people choose to believe something. Even if you don't, don't belittle them because they do. :main_angry: Let's accept that we're different, get back on topic, and move on ... OK?

I have a problem with people that wont believe something just because there there faith doesn't allow it. I have NO problem with people believing in a god, I don't give a crap to be honest, there is nothing I care less about. But, when you deny certain facts about the world/universe despite the OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary, it really gets to me.

I don't think anyone was belittling anyone.

I can accept everybody is different, like I said... I have NO problem with people believing in a god, I don't give a crap to be honest, there is nothing I care less about. But, when you deny certain facts about the world/universe despite the OVERWHELMING evidence, it really gets to me.

PEACE!!!
J.

 

[Khrysty]

...I had this big long thing and then i accidentally closed the window. Let me try again.

This conversation is ridiculous and accusatory. It's a natural progression from a LOT of misinformed statements.

Here is what I know: scientists have been trying for years to work around the need to use embryonic stem cells (if only because of the controversy from the religious and proLife portions of society) and have come a long way. They will continue their research, and eventually they will phase out embryonic stem cell use altogether to ease the public's stomach. Cord blood can be used to create blood stem cells, but nothing else. Still, that's used to cure lukemia. Certain skin cells, they're now learning, can be coaxed into stem cells that are just as useful as embryonic. Since 2005, they've been working on extracting stem cells from the amniotic fluid and placental tissue (this is done POST birth with no harmful effects to mother or child). These cells seem to work just as well as the embryonic stem cells, as well. Have faith, if you can, in science. It does progress.

Don't forget, most of what we know about the human body we learned from dissection of live specimens. Nazi Germany, as horrific as it was, was crucial in advancing modern medicine. We must start somewhere, if we're going to learn at all, but we are only gruesome and inhumane (if this is, indeed, the way you feel about embryonic stem cells..) as long as it takes us to find something better.

Keep up with the research, if it interests you. I'm not a mother, but if I were, even if science doesn't progress to a point where I'm comfortable by the time I (if I ever) need it. I wouldn't reject anything if it came to saving my child, believe me.

 

[dprince]

The topic was a practical application of genetic engineering, which progressed logically into a discussion of church/government interference in related research and development. I don't see anything wrong with the discussion, and I would hope anyone who chooses to get involved will be mature enough not to throw a fit when their beliefs, or lack thereof, are questioned.

Exactly. I think it's fine (and interesting!) to have this discussion. As long as everyone remains civil, I see nothing wrong with the direction this thread is heading. It's OK that we don't all agree :main_yes:

 

[dprince]

My error.

Uniformitarianism is indeed the cornerstone of modern day geology. Darwin's theory of evolution is heavily based upon it. This is where our opinions differ. Creation Science provides clear evidence of a Biblical flood which is directly referred to in the Bible. A difference of opinion, many people choose to accept the studies and philosophies of research that has been around for a little over 200 years. But I choose to put my faith in the teachings of a Book that has been around for thousands of years and has yet to be universally disproven. Both have compelling arguements.

I'm not familiar with "creation science." What is the difference between "creation science" and "regular" science?

I'm also interested to hear about what "clear evidence" of a Biblical flood has been proven.

 

[hoppergirl]

I have a problem with people that wont believe something just because there there faith doesn't allow it. I have NO problem with people believing in a god, I don't give a crap to be honest, there is nothing I care less about. But, when you deny certain facts about the world/universe despite the OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary, it really gets to me.

I don't think anyone was belittling anyone.


http://www.icr.org/geological-strata/

As I said before, there are compelling arguments on both sides as to how we got here and how the earth was created/formed. I’m not a scientist and I’ve formed my opinions on these topics based on what I’ve been taught and what I’ve learned over the years. I’m not out to point fingers about who is right or wrong, I’m simply stating my opinion as we all are.

I don’t think anyone on here is throwing a fit about having their beliefs questioned, I’m certainly not. I’m open to what everyone else has to say regarding all the topics that have been touched on in this thread as long as it's approached in a respectful manner.

As far as genetics and stem cell research is concerned, I understand a parent doing anything and everything they can to better the life of their child. I would do anything for my daughter if put in that position.

 

[herpencounter]

If your really going to argue your point with the ICR I give up... this is pointless...


EDIT: Here is the problem with the ICR... They make a conclusion and then find the facts that fit that conclusion... If that was the way Science worked everything and anything can be proven true... REAL science finds the facts then draws a conclusion from those facts...

Example... "According to the record in Genesis, there was a time when the entire surface of the earth was inundated with water."

Fail...

 

[Tony C]

As I said before, there are compelling arguments on both sides as to how we got here and how the earth was created/formed.

The arguments for creation are only compelling if you force yourself to turn a blind eye to the physical evidence of an ancient earth and the evolution of life.

 

[dprince]

http://www.icr.org/geological-strata/.

I'd like to see some information from a less biased resource than the ICR. I have to agree with Josiah, science is all about finding out information (facts), and basing theory on those facts. Sometimes, theories are disproven. With science, when this happens, it's back to the drawing board.

From what I've read from this website, the ICR is all about making science fit in relgion's bubble. Which..........isn't quite science.

What happens when science disproves something in the Bible? Do people who believe in the Bible say, "Whoops! Bummer, back to the drawing board!" or "Whoops, that apostle must have imbibed too much that day when they were writing that chapter!!" My experience is that the arguements are, "you just have to have faith," or "it was a miracle." I've also heard "the Bible is the exact word of God, so it can't be questioned." :main_no: I guess I'm more of a "I've got to see it to believe it" kind of girl.

As I said before, there are compelling arguments on both sides as to how we got here and how the earth was created/formed. I’m not a scientist and I’ve formed my opinions on these topics based on what I’ve been taught and what I’ve learned over the years. I’m not out to point fingers about who is right or wrong, I’m simply stating my opinion as we all are.

I don’t think anyone on here is throwing a fit about having their beliefs questioned, I’m certainly not. I’m open to what everyone else has to say regarding all the topics that have been touched on in this thread as long as it's approached in a respectful manner.

Agreed!

As far as genetics and stem cell research is concerned, I understand a parent doing anything and everything they can to better the life of their child. I would do anything for my daughter if put in that position.

That is one thing that you and I TOTALLY agree on. :main_yes:

 

[hoppergirl]

Debbie I’m glad we agree on something

http://www.evolution-facts.org/EncyclopediaTOC.htm

http://www.facingthechallenge.org/arch2.php


I will argue my point with what supports it. Of course I’m not going to go to “darwinism.com” (gross example) to support my opinion of a global flood. I will however read that literature and base my opinion on what I feel and believe to be true, but at this point I’ve yet to be swayed. There are hundreds of books & biased websites backing up Darwin’s theory of evolution and there are hundreds of books (biased as well) refuting it. It’s certainly not an argument that will be won or lost on this forum.

I’m not surprised that the arguments you’ve heard are “to have a little faith”. Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing. But isn’t science putting its faith in what they have found to be “true”? A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true, although its truth is never final.


I definitely don’t think the Bible is the exact word of God or a literal interpretation. It was written “by inspiration of God…” and it says so in it, so I’ll argue anyone who tells you that might not be up to speed

 

[Tony C]

I’m not surprised that the arguments you’ve heard are “to have a little faith”. Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing. But isn’t science putting its faith in what they have found to be “true”? A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true, although its truth is never final.

Science is the opposite of faith. Faith presents a conclusion and holds that conclusion to be true regardless of evidence. Science is the process of examining evidence, drawing a conclusion from that evidence, and then testing and refining the conclusion. To say that science is faith is ignorant.

 

[herpencounter]

Debbie I’m glad we agree on something

http://www.evolution-facts.org/EncyclopediaTOC.htm

http://www.facingthechallenge.org/arch2.php

Ok... There is so much information to refute on those sites. If you think you found a "fact" on that site that I cant refute post it.

I will argue my point with what supports it.

And thats where the problem is...

OH! Did you know I belive in unicorns??? Why? Because I found evidence for it =). I am going to argue my point on what supports unicorns. OK? Lets talk about that =).

Of course I’m not going to go to “darwinism.com” (gross example) to support my opinion of a global flood. I will however read that literature and base my opinion on what I feel and believe to be true, but at this point I’ve yet to be swayed. There are hundreds of books & biased websites backing up Darwin’s theory of evolution and there are hundreds of books (biased as well) refuting it. It’s certainly not an argument that will be won or lost on this forum.

Its not biased... Every fact of the biological world can be explained by evolution. If evolution didn't explain every fact of the biological world then we would need to find a new theory. lets just say tomorrow evolution was proven wrong. Creation would still not be true. Why? Because creation CANNOT explain every fact of biology. So we would still be looking for a new theory.

I’m not surprised that the arguments you’ve heard are “to have a little faith”. Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing. But isn’t science putting its faith in what they have found to be “true”? A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true, although its truth is never final.

Faith-

belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

+1 for Tony

I definitely don’t think the Bible is the exact word of God or a literal interpretation. It was written “by inspiration of God…” and it says so in it, so I’ll argue anyone who tells you that might not be up to speed

I was a Christian for a long time... I know all the junk in it... Every Christian (all the different views of Christianity) can find support in there belief through the bible. Its AMAZING! (even the Christians that belive in evolution =o)
J.

P.S. Please pick that facts that you think support your position. You keep posting up sites...

 

[Tony C]

I definitely don’t think the Bible is the exact word of God or a literal interpretation. It was written “by inspiration of God…” and it says so in it, so I’ll argue anyone who tells you that might not be up to speed

So if the bible is not literal truth, why insist on the literal truth of patently false ideas like a young earth, Noah's flood, and all life being created as it exists today?

 

[dprince]

Debbie I’m glad we agree on something

http://www.evolution-facts.org/EncyclopediaTOC.htm

http://www.facingthechallenge.org/arch2.php


I will argue my point with what supports it. Of course I’m not going to go to “darwinism.com” (gross example) to support my opinion of a global flood. I will however read that literature and base my opinion on what I feel and believe to be true, but at this point I’ve yet to be swayed. There are hundreds of books & biased websites backing up Darwin’s theory of evolution and there are hundreds of books (biased as well) refuting it. It’s certainly not an argument that will be won or lost on this forum.

I’m not surprised that the arguments you’ve heard are “to have a little faith”. Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing. But isn’t science putting its faith in what they have found to be “true”? A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true, although its truth is never final.


I definitely don’t think the Bible is the exact word of God or a literal interpretation. It was written “by inspiration of God…” and it says so in it, so I’ll argue anyone who tells you that might not be up to speed

I could tell you that I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM). http://www.venganza.org/ It has just as much validity - or not - as any other belief that cannot be proven.

As for the websites you've listed, they're completely biased. Which makes them worthless as far as proving anything (still didn't see where "proof" of a biblical flood occurred.........), or even making a valid argument. :main_huh: True, objective scientific websites don't start out with something like "scientific proof that creation doesn't exist." Science isn't worried about other points of view that can't be proven. Science is about finding answers - and if the shoe doesn't fit, it tries on another shoe instead of trying to cram a size 11 foot into a Cinderella size 6.