Philo
quote "Really! Your constant defense of atheism we would have thought was an attempt to retain your intellectual position and your ego!"

two points 1) I am not an atheist. I never said I was. But you already knew that. As a point of fact I am a believer just not a fundamentalist.

2) what can I say to your deliberate misrepresentation of My views except...I forgive you & turn the other cheek. Care to strike me again philo

Flood:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html

Rh-Os: IDK enough to argue for/against it, but in terms of viability, how’s this for the Big Bang?

“Evolutionists generally believe that stars formed by the collapse of gas clouds under gravity. This is supposed to generate the millions of degrees required for nuclear fusion.

“But most clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would prevent collapse. Evolutionists must find a way for the cloud to cool down. One such mechanism might be through molecules in the cloud colliding and radiating enough of the heat away.

“But according to theory, the ‘big bang’ made mainly hydrogen, with a little helium—the other elements supposedly formed inside stars. Helium can't form molecules at all, so the only molecule that could be formed would be molecular hydrogen (H2). Even this is easily destroyed by ultraviolet light, and usually needs dust grains to form—and dust grains require heavier elements. So the only coolant left is atomic hydrogen, and this would leave gas clouds over a hundred times too hot to collapse.

“Abraham Loeb of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics says: ‘The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level.’”

Marcus Chown, ‘Let there be light’, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998.

“Experimental evidence comes from experiments, ie. tests done to check if a hypothesis is correct. And evidence is something that can be used to support or indicate the correctness of a claim.”
How is what I mentioned re: flood any different to “experiments” conducted re: evolutionary theory as origin of the species.

“Damn their bias towards evidence! No, really, a credible journal won't (shouldn't) publish anything with *any* conclusion that isn't supported by sound arguments and evidence.” Blah, u evolutionists still don’t seem to get this. Creationists do publish science in scientific journals. But where they argue about how that has worked itself into the history of the universe- and really, by the use of your words “current theory”, u show that we don’t KNOW a whole lot about it- their views are not accepted. When evolutionists do the same, even if their paradigm

is just the current fashionable thing to believe in, its accepted as a part of science.

Where have I ever said faith should be considered science? Never. Science trusts in man, faith trusts in [God?]. but can one be used to explore the other? Sure, in the right context. I have never said we should start quoting Scripture in Science journals or teaching the Bible in chemistry class.

“Theoretical testing applies to the past through application of KNOWN CONDITIONS to a set of KNOWN PAST CIRCUMSTANCES and seeing whether the current results match the expected results”
Known past circumstances? Really?

“The results do not match the theory, the theory is wrong.” That doesn’t mean if they do, its right.

“If & only if "A" is true then "B" is true”. You did NOT say that in your post.

You basically said “if C, I will find “a” or “b”, which leaves much room for “if D, if E, if F, etc.” You should have said “if and only if”.

So what is the “C” that is the “if and only if” of evolution?

In the same way I will ask the Christians: “if we find "A" or "B" then creation could not have occurred…” what are those A’s and B’s?

Reason, you’ve elucidated on part of the whole Creation thing, not all of it, but I respect your views.

“benefits which come from science when it is used in the service of humanity” I think Boaz would respond to the “when used in the service of humanity” bit more than I would… e.g. what induces basically selfish people to do that? At least those with a [species-centric?] view of the world fostered by Creationists beliefs would see some value in serving humanity (whether that eventuates into action or not is another story).

But so often the idea that some humans are more evolved than others has been used to justify racism, which is what I meant.

Fundamentalism = sticking to the fundamentals of one’s beliefs. I’m curious, what has led to u rejecting part of commonly held Christian beliefs

YngNLuvnIt,
There is a court case happening in the USA at this moment; action brought by several parents rejecting ID. My professor friend from University Western Sydney gave me a link today on the case. As soon as I have checked it out I will post here. It is to be defended by leading professors in their field upholding ID

I posted this link to an interesting podcast on the other ID thread, but it's equally relevant here.

"The Skeptic Tank - Intelligent Design plus some Bad Astronomy - Richard Saunders, Eugenie C Scott, Phil Plait"

http://www.skeptics.com.au/tank/

Cheers :)

YngNLuvnIt, I don't care that there is a semi-science based religious explanation for how "the flood" could have occurred, you said world-wide flooding is not a miracle and that's bull. You cannot produce an alternative explanation for the fossil record without resorting to miracles, furthermore you can't do it without referring to numerous unnecessary actions by a deity.

The Big Bang is not relevant. Evolution does not depend on either the natural development of the universe we see today or the natural production of life.

But I will take issue with a few things. If hydrogen clouds were too hot to be contained by gravity, I think we have to ask ourselves... what's keeping the super hot great big flaming ball of mostly hydrogen and helium otherwise known as "the sun" together? Under gravitational pressure far greater than what exists in our atmosphere hydrogen is going to be enough to assist covalent bonding, at least until there is too much compression for that. We don't know enough about star formation yet, but again it has nothing to do with evolution.

"How is what I mentioned re: flood any different"
It's not, but at least evolution is falsifiable. (OK, the same is true for the flood since it has been falsified.)

"But where they argue about how that has worked itself into the history of the universe- -their views are not accepted."
Because like you here, they have been unable to provide good evidence or sound logic to support those arguments. Where they make other arguments they may sometimes be able.

"by the use of your words 'current theory', u show that we don't KNOW a whole lot about it"
People get stuff wrong and we don't know everything, hence it could change. It says little about the volume of knowledge& evidence.

"When evolutionists do the same,"
Sure, journals publish wrong stuff all the time and people get attracted to new ideas, doesn't mean they should. It's reasonable to have a (rebuttable) presumption against commonly refuted types of arguments (eg. cold fusion)

One of your quotes said something about faith positions.