gadgetlady

Completed Jew is what she calls herself. It's not my term.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/fossil_hat.asp The vertical whale was a photo I saw about 15 years ago. It will take me some time to find it.

Thanks, lisah25. I honestly had no idea my choice of words would cause such an uproar. I should have used "flamed" instead, but sometimes the thesarus in my head isn't working properly. I've used that phrase in my life to describe things (unrelated to this thread), and no one IRL has ever been outraged by it, so I had no idea there would be a group of people that would react in the way you all did.

Just to clarify, laurend, I have never found your posts to be anything but thoughtful, well-delivered, and honest. I was not maligning you in any sense of the word, and I'm sorry you felt that I was.

Thanks for the suggestion. I will use that in the future.

I thought you were hiding under your chair laughing.

Well, clearly my choice of words has offended. I respectfully recall the phrase "gang-rape". I could choose another word or phrase, but I'm sure it would inspire an equal number of red flags. Suffice it to say, I believe there is a lot of very strong bullying combined with condescension that goes on on this board.

I didn't mention you. It's an expression. Yes, I do. From the way I read it, Ron was defending and/or attacking back. I don't see any place that he started the attack. The opposite may also be true. My apologies. I was expressing my opinion of what I saw. Please disregard my statement.

That statement just might prove my point.

I'm sure there are those who will agree and those who will disagree. That won't be a surprise. I've also watched it happen to other people.

If you wanna believe the universe is only 47 years old, more power to you. I've said that more than once. My hope is to present an opposing viewpoint to some of you, perhaps one that you have never heard presented in a thoughtful and realistic manner. Some may investigate, and some may not. Hopefully some will gain a little insight into creation science and understand that it is not a bunch of bull put together by people who believe the earth is flat. I never knew about creation science until I was in my late 20's. All I had ever heard was evolution. The first time I saw a picture of a whale fossil vertically suspended through several layers of rock strata, I realized evolution theory might have a problem. When I heard of a miner's hat becoming fossilized in fewer than 50 years, I was intrigued. It was with investigation that I learned. I will quote from a newsletter I just received about the tv show "Family Guy": In the episode “Petarded,” a character named Peter takes an IQ test. When he goes to find out the results, a doctor shows him a chart depicting where he is intellectually. The chart, in descending order, shows: Average Petarded Peter On the bottom of the chart, under Peter, who himself is listed under “petarded,” we see the word “creationist.” How easy do you think it is to present an alternate theory of origins in a world that mocks it? Most people absorb not only debasing discussions of creation science throughout their lives, but also "facts" (which I contend are not factual) about evolution theory as well. How easy is it to present alternatives to people who have been brainwashed?

I also discovered this thread late-in-the-game and have read through everything with interest. Ron, I think you have done an excellent job of presenting AND defending the Gospel, and I don't think anything you have said or done has been out of line. I appreciate your thoughtful responses to the questions presented. I, too, have been "gang-raped" on other threads and I know how easy it is to lash out in kind against those who are attacking. I have a friend who is a "completed Jew" (as she calls herself) and she is such an incredible witness. Your ministry is a difficult one but I'm sure also very rewarding at times. Our pastor spends a lot of time in his sermons putting the Bible into context and showing how the Jewish faith informs what was being said. I believe you can't truly understand the Bible until you have at least some concept of Jewish culture. Keep up the good work!

I have a question that I'm opening up to everyone. I can name a bunch of scientists who used to believe in evolution but have, once presented with evidence of creation science / intelligent design and done their research, no longer believe in evolution. I have not heard of ONE that has gone the other direction. I'm not talking about some "average Joe", non-scientist who used to attend a church that preached creationism and didn't believe it and then discovered they "liked" evolution theory better. I'm talking about scientists who do this for a living. Does anyone know of one (or more) who have made this conversion?

I disagree. I think most evolutionists set out to prove their belief correct on a daily basis. Well, I daresay your mother would disagree that the world is only 47 years old, since after all she was alive well before she gave birth to you. Making up a ridiculous theory and then showing how ridiculous it is doesn't disprove a legitimate scientific theory. It only proves that your theory is ridiculous.

I would have no problem with a competent woman being president, but to answer your question frankly I can't think of one in the public arena that both embodies my personal political beliefs and is qualified or has made herself known to be qualified for the position. I would have voted for Jeane Kirkpatrick (former ambassador to the UN) in a heartbeat but, alas, that is no longer an option. The reality of politics today is that without some credible experience in the national or international arena (i.e. serving in congress, as a governor, or holding some other position of authority in national or international politics) there is little possibility of being elected. So is there currently a woman in one of those positions for whom I would vote? I can't think of one. Does that mean I'm misogynistic and will only ever vote for men? Not at all. It just means that I live -- and vote -- in the real world.

I find in the discussion of radiometric dating claims that use themselves to "prove" themselves. It's circular reasoning. For example, The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years This appears to me to be "we posit this thing to have an age of 1,800 million years, and because of this presupposition we find it's age is consistent with 1,800 million years"? There is no independent proveable criteria to validate the claim.

Hi everyone. Sorry I've been MIA for a while. I was out of town on business and didn't have time to respond to all individual posts with questions and challenges. And, to be fair, I still don't. I haven't read everything posted for a few days now and I'm too tired to go back and do it. If there's something someone particularly wants answered, please re-post and I'll do my best. I am going to post a lot of links answering some of the questions brought up here. I don't think I can paraphrase what is being said in these links and do the discussions any justice, so I'm giving these references. I believe there are answers to every question raised, but I also know that brilliant scientists on both sides of the fence still disagree, so if I encounter someone who is so fixed in his position on this matter that he is unwilling to read the opposition's position, anything I say or do will not change his opinion. There have been books, courses, and whole lives dedicated to this discussion and there is little common ground, so in the end it all comes down to which "evidence" you believe to be more compelling. I don't believe in denigrating each other's position, and I'm tired of the "creationists are idiots" statements. I don't even know who brought up the question of radiometric dating, but I will direct you to this page for some good discussions: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Here's the bottom line: since no one was around to tell us how old something is, scientists assume their dating methods are accurate. They then extrapolate to date other objects using the same method, which, if flawed with the first thing they dated, is equally flawed with subsequent dating. There are very real questions about the accuracy of radiometric dating, and I would submit that we cannot "KNOW" with certainty that the earth is 6,000, 10,000, 100,000, or 20 billion years old from this methodology. I believe it was laurend who brought up archaeopteryx; please see http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp for a discussion of this topic. As to the question of whether God's definition of a day could have been a million years, see http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/genesis.asp Again, I believe there are answers to all of the questions posed. I find the questions interesting and I find the answers compelling. Can either side be proven? I don't think so. But that doesn't mean that the matter shouldn't be discussed.

But you're missing MY point. There are facts that are science based. I don't know what facts you've seen; that's why I asked. Try this site, for example: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/index.htm From http://www.gotquestions.org/intelligent-design.html: The Intelligent Design Theory is not Biblical Creationism. There is an important distinction between the two positions. Biblical Creationists begin with a conclusion: that the Biblical account of creation is reliable and correct; that life on Earth was designed by an Intelligent Agent (God). They then look for evidence from the natural realm to support this conclusion. Intelligent Design Theorists begin with the natural realm and reach their conclusion subsequently: that life on Earth was designed by an Intelligent Agent (whoever that might be). (emphasis added)

laurend, I will respond to your lengthy post; I'm just worn out tonight. It's been a long day. Have a good night!

Wow! I guess we have completely different experiences. Maybe growing up in California makes the difference. I don't know. All I know is I never heard of creation science or intelligent design until I was in my late 20's (the early '90's). Prior to that, I had literally never heard of anything BUT evolution, and it was and has always been presented as fact. If I recommended a book or two, would you read them? Because even if you've never spoken with anyone who can provide any credible facts that point to creationism, that doesn't mean they aren't out there. That makes me sad. I said in another thread that one of my former pastors used to say being Christians doesn't mean we check our brains at the door. Unfortunately, that's the impression a lot of people have of Christianity, and while some people may be of the opinion "God said it - I believe it - That settles it", that certainly doesn't mean that's the only attitude out there. I strongly recommend the website www.str.org which encourages Christians to think clearly and be intellectually fair in their presentations.

Anyone else want to take a crack at this? I do have a point.

Well I have to believe in something, so I choose to believe what I choose to believe. You choose to believe the other thing. Neither is proven. I believe there is more evidence for creation and the world around us more closely aligns with creation theory. I've never known an explosion in a brick pile to create a building. It's counter-intuitive. It works the other way around. To inject a little levity, here's my favorite joke: Scientists say to God, "We've finally done it! We can create man from dust." God says, "Show me." The scientists bend down to gather some dust and God stops them. "Get your own dust." and My favorite Thomas Edison quote: "Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge."

I don't have a problem with agreeing to disagree. I just have a problem with someone saying millions of years is a fact when it's not. So yes, let's agree to disagree.

That's what I mean about evolution being rammed down our throats. It is not fact, yet it is presented as fact.

We have very different experiences, then. Everywhere I go, everything I listen to, I keep hearing "millions of years" presented as fact. Discovery Channel, movies, documentaries, museums, the internet, everywhere. Where do you live?