This site has really opened my eyes into the scientific field. Granted I am still a Christian and I no amount of science will alert the fact that I believe in God; however, I am starting to see things in a new light. The age-old struggle of evolution is rather dumb. The evidence, thankfully provided by members and moderators, is increasingly evident and creationists really don't have a logical basis for their argument. Next, I have observed that the only reason "creationists" care about the evolution debate is because they are afraid of 1) The Bible being proven wrong, and 2) God being proved non-existent.

Well, talking to science professors and members of academia, I have realized, science is not in the business of proving things but rather learning and uncovering knowledge. Science cannot prove nor care about the existence of God because God is "supernatural" transcending the laws of nature and thus void from any scientific discussion. This is not saying God is non-existent, but rather has no place in the scientific community.

I thank everyone here for their time and thoughts and I hope and pray this site continues to grow

PS Sorry about the long time away. Work and school kinda distract!

No problemo, just keep coming back. Your participation contributes too.

Cheers willhud9!

We like you too.

Oh brother.
Have you read the posts here?
First science is not a noun. it is simply a word for the ordinary accumulation of knowledge or claims to knowledge of the universe. As a process is just about being very strict before conclusions are made.
In origin issues this strictness fails mostly.
Biblical creationism is based on confidence in the bible and quick observation that nothing does or can contradict it.
Then a chance to advance mans knowledge while correcting errors.
it all comes down to the merits of the case.
Creationism says the evolution case is not there for such great conclusions.
its just simple attrition by us or these new I.D people that is going to end the error.

Robert Byers wrote:Oh brother.
Have you read the posts here?
First science is not a noun. it is simply a word for the ordinary accumulation of knowledge or claims to knowledge of the universe. As a process is just about being very strict before conclusions are made.
In origin issues this strictness fails mostly.
Biblical creationism is based on confidence in the bible and quick observation that nothing does or can contradict it.
Then a chance to advance mans knowledge while correcting errors.
it all comes down to the merits of the case.
Creationism says the evolution case is not there for such great conclusions.
its just simple attrition by us or these new I.D people that is going to end the error.

And science[noun] tells us that the bible is full of shit.

@willhud9:

Robert Byers wrote:
First science is not a noun.

Eh, no, it's not.

"Science" is a noun: a word that falls within a certain grammatical category. So is "God".

Science is a systematic empirical study of life, universe and everything (but possibly excluding 42).

Oh brother. And your point was?

Robert Byers wrote:Oh brother.
Have you read the posts here?
First science is not a noun. it is simply a word for the ordinary accumulation of knowledge or claims to knowledge of the universe. As a process is just about being very strict before conclusions are made.
In origin issues this strictness fails mostly.
Biblical creationism is based on confidence in the bible and quick observation that nothing does or can contradict it.
Then a chance to advance mans knowledge while correcting errors.
it all comes down to the merits of the case.
Creationism says the evolution case is not there for such great conclusions.
its just simple attrition by us or these new I.D people that is going to end the error.

Can you put that another way?

How about just put it away altogether?

Robert Byers wrote:First science is not a noun.

Why do you say stuff like this? Have you considered consulting a dictionary before making such a proclamation?

Here, try following this link:-

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science

sci·ence   /ˈsaɪəns/ Show Spelled[sahy-uhns] Show IPA
–noun
1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.systematized knowledge in general.
5.knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.a particular branch of knowledge.
7.skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

See, it's a word with at least 7 meanings as a noun.

I think it's quite sad that in a thread that Willhud9 has made sharing with us all how he has opened his eyes to reality and all the wonders it contains you feel the need to come in with such blatant falsehoods and propaganda. He's not in danger of losing his faith as he specifically says, this is just about opening up to rationalism.

Mr Byers, you tell us science is not a noun then proceed to describe it as a referring to a collection of knowledge or claims of knowledge.

a word for the ordinary accumulation of knowledge or claims to knowledge of the universe

.
any member of a class of words that are formally distinguished in many languages, as in English, typically by the plural and possessive endings and that can function as the main or only elements of subjects or objects, as cat, belief, writing, Ohio, darkness. Nouns are often thought of as referring to persons, places, things, states, or qualities.

'accumulation of knowledge or claims of knowledge' fits that definition very well.
And as part of the service:
sci·ence 

 
[sahy-uhns] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.
a particular branch of knowledge.
7.
skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Quite frankly, nothing in that or most other dictionaries would suggest otherwise.
"I shall science that fish" ?

Science can be used as an adjective, but that would be an awkward phrase, I'm sure.

If we can't trust your English, which I'm led to believe is your native tongue, why would we consider your postulations on science to be of enough value to de-construct your texts? With all due respect, please make a little more sure of the accuracy of your statements before expressing them.

Robert Byers wrote:... science is not a noun ...

Is this a simple-minded mistake, an egregious error, or an attempt at muddying the waters of understanding (aka, lying)? Do tell.

Oh, and apologies to Willhud9 for allowing myself to be sidetracked by idiocy. Your preparedness to admit a change in opinionon the basis of new understandings & information, sets you apart from a good number of your co-religionists, certainly many of those who post here. Well done.

Good point Chairman Bill.

Willhud9, well done, and sorry for distracting your thread.

Me too.

Indeed, your approach has been a refreshing change from the norm.

Most of the main christian sects have long accepted evolution, it's just a few of the terminally deluded left. Hopefully they will have all died out in a generation or two.

Do you believe god causes all and every raindrop to fall, or did he create a world in which raindrops fall automatically?
Do you believe god holds every individual thing to the surface of the planet, or did he create the laws of gravity so that it is done automatically?
Do you believe god created each individual organism individually, or did he create evolution via natural selection to do it automatically?

The first describes an idiot god, the second describes a common moderate view.

Creationism is for idiots and extremists, it will die out sooner or later.

Glad you like it here, Will.

It's nice to have a christian here (another christian, that is) who is not blinded by indoctrination but actually interested in reality.

willhud9 wrote:Science cannot prove nor care about the existence of God because God is "supernatural" transcending the laws of nature and thus void from any scientific discussion. This is not saying God is non-existent, but rather has no place in the scientific community.

Thanks for coming back to check in, willhud9. It bears mentioning, though, that unless your 'transcendent' god-concept does nothing at all, this leaves the possibility of scientific investigation of its effects. You may of course posit a god-concept that chooses to intervene in an undetectable manner, as I've seen some believers claim their god operates on the 'quantum' level. It is a far cry from the typical interventionist miracle-worker concepts, though. And it begs the question of why believe in such a thing, if such a god-concept's activities are equivalent to no activity, no existence at all.

Robert Byers wrote:Oh brother.
Have you read the posts here?
First science is not a noun. it is simply a word for the ordinary accumulation of knowledge or claims to knowledge of the universe. As a process is just about being very strict before conclusions are made.
In origin issues this strictness fails mostly.
Biblical creationism is based on confidence in the bible and quick observation that nothing does or can contradict it.
Then a chance to advance mans knowledge while correcting errors.
it all comes down to the merits of the case.
Creationism says the evolution case is not there for such great conclusions.
its just simple attrition by us or these new I.D people that is going to end the error.

How about coming back to all the threads you've rectally sullied with your ID talk and you can finally answer all the questions posed to you?

Well, let me see if I can explain my current standings.

I believe that God created the heavens and earth. This phrase is a generic phrase for everything. Unlike my college Liberty University, I do not believe in Ex Nihilo Creation. This is more of a ploy then evidence. There is no evidence that the "universe" came from nothing and too be honest, would it really be surprising if matter was eternal i.e. matter cannot be created nor destroyed. *speculation out of science: Could an eternal God use eternal matter to create a universe? It is of my belief that yes He could and did*

So when God was forming the Earth, and unlike answersingenesis, this was not a literal week. Surprisingly, if we were to read Genesis 1 literal, we would be so confused. How does morning and evening come with no sun or moon in the skies? The answer: it cannot. So we(Biblical Christians) must analyze that yes the creation account is true, but it serves a different purpose other than being a science textbook. Cause it would be seriously flawed if it was.

As for the evolution issue! Reading the Hebrew text of Genesis 1, when God "creates" the plants etc. There is an interesting line that in English reads, "Let the earth bring forth..." This is rather odd, because if God specifically created each and every life form. Then why not read, "Let plants arise from the ground...?" The answer is two-fold: 1) God was allowing the earth to take over in creation of life and 2) It is demonstrating the power of God to command the Earth(various pagan gods of Egypt were sons and daughters of the Earth, and therefore weaker.)

So if the earth was allowed to create life than natural selection would be allowed to happen. Evolution would be fine to take place and yes even the concept of "macro-evolution." Again the evidence is there.

This change happened 1) because this site was full of people who knew science and actually took the time to rebuttal EVERY line and detail and 2) because talking to a young earth creationist, I discovered that the laws of logic were being ignored.

The young earth creationist believed that God created each individual species. So that would mean that God created over 6 million different species of insect, not to mention the million species of fish, and mammals and birds. Could God do it? Yes; however, evidence says otherwise. God ended the creation account on the 7th "day." Not to say he ended creation, He ended the account. Scientists have discovered animals and plants that are fairly new in this "age" that were not around 6,000+ years ago. So if creationists were to read Genesis literal than these new species should not be there and in fact, according to science, lions, bears, and all the furry mammals we love should not be around either. But again, Genesis 1 is not meant to be literal(word for word). Since God only ended the account, but the *earth still had the power* to bring forth life, evolution was still taking place and new creatures were arising after hundreds of thousands of years.

*earth still had power* is only figurative. The earth is not a sentient being. This being said, evolution is not chaotic nor is it orderly, but rather is. It just happens. The idea of chaos and order are more philosophical than science and they do have a place in science but not here.

Anyways, it may not be what everyone agrees with, but this is so far what I have been thinking and formulated and I admit I could be completely wrong .