Been called in to work tonight, so gotta sleep today. Can’t stay long.

Black Cat - your evidence ousts my unproven speculation about rapid plate movement heat displacement, with global firesi because I have no evidence …that I recognize…to support my speculation.

Celtic_Evolution - thank you for your patiencel. I have not intentionally tried to prozletyze any one. My one entry was the unprove speculation. It looked like ya’ll were picking on Per, so I jumped in, was my other thread.

Jose - You’red entitled to your opinion, and I’m sorry you feel that way.

Darth Robo - Oh, yes, it has occured to me, I’m in ‘way over my head. Really. Usually, I enjoy corresponding with people more educated than me.

To the above and all others: By nature, I’m defensive. So, I have been too defensive, then.

Now that we all are aware of each others’ position, maybe future discussions contain more amialbility.

Respectfully,
Don

Case in point. In two short sentences, no less. Funny!

I wish one could donate to a charity for the perspectively disenfranchised.

Of course scientists have bias. Nobody claims they don’t. For example, some of the greatest scientific minds in history (One was named Einstein) refused to accept quantum physics on philosophical grounds. A very unscientific position. The great thing about science is that it didn’t matter. The evidence won out.

Did you ever try to view the Holy Bible as unproven documentation?
No. I grew up a good Christian boy, believing the Bible was the word of God. Then when I was about 12, I read the damn thing for the first time. I didn’t know much about science at the time and didn’t need to in order to spot contradictions and despicable, morally indefensible actions that weren’t viewed as such. A love story? Is your definition of love something Jack the Ripper might relate to? You think it’s a love story? Please explain, unless you want me to think you’re a sicko who belongs in jail.

Both God’s people and science people really need to make a truce.
First, you don’t need science to prove the Bible is not literal truth. It does that quite well on its own.

Second, science is not at war with religion. It doesn’t care whether the Bible exists or not. If you try and analyze the Bible scientifically, the Bible doesn’t hold up hold up very well. But neither do Great Expectations, Harry Potter or Moby Dick. Science is not at war those either. There’s no truce to be made on the part of science. Sure, there are some “science people” who argue against religion, but there are also plenty who don’t. I’m sure you’re already aware that many scientists are themselves Christians.

The problem is that there are religious people, such as you who, insist on making baseless attacking on science, then attempting to force your religious beliefs on others. As a consequence, science is forced to defend itself. I suspect that you’re going to say you’re not one of those people trying to force your beliefs on others. If that’s the case, you can relax. Most “science people” don’t care what your personal beliefs are.

Back to your quote.
Both God’s people and science people really need to make a truce.
So you think your one of “Gods people” and “science people” aren’t? Get off your pedestal. You’re a disingenuous, pompous ass. Signing off with “respectfully” or a “traditional Christian greeting”, doesn’t mean you’ve been respectful or a good Christian.

Don, has it ever occurred to you that you are in WAY over your head? As a word of warning, I’ve been on a number of forums that have had “debates” over science involving creationists and people who actually know what they’re talking about. And on many many MANY threads, I’ve never seen a creationist win an argument. Not one. Ever.

Sorry, I know you don’t like the term “creationist” but while seemingly more honest than most, you do display some of the classic traits that creationists have, like arguing against many scientific fields that contradict your beliefs, cherry-picking evidence at some times, providing none whatsoever at others. And there is the classic taking offence when your religion is not taken as seriously by others, even though you show no reason that they should. This is commonly known as the ‘fundie martyr complex’. If a Muslim or Hindu showed up here and took offence towards you because you disagreed with them on say matters of religious history, what would you do? A possible response would be “Deal with it.”

(I do respect your not wanting to be pigeon-holed by others though, I’ve had people categorise me too, to which I just say I have my own pigeon hole).

I’m no scientist by any means, but I picked up on the same flaws in your arguments that Celtic_Evolution and TheBlackCat did. To which they did a far better job of refuting than I ever could - and they did it thoroughly - and well. I’d also like to point out once again that there are people of faith who still accept all of modern science yet still believe in God. It is those kinds of people who could read this thread and NOT be offended by any of the scientific facts put forward by anyone here. I’m not trying to change your beliefs or tell you that you should believe the same way they do, but as someone pointed out, you did come here on a scientific thread and stated your uninformed opinions that were contrary to currently accepted science. The consequence being (which was not deliberately intended) that you heard stuff you would not like to hear.

On a more general rant, if there’s one thing I do get tired of, it has to be the overused fundie martyr complex. As TheBlackCat said before, it is creationists who are consistently pushing their religion into schools and into government and any time people disagree with them they start saying that their “faith is being attacked!”. Or accuse people of being “over-zealous secularists”. Which is just dumb.

So you have a source that says, all the way back to 8.3 billion years, That, “…there were rocks that cannot form underwater…”, on the one hand. On the other hand, I have a source, who says in so many words, he found carbonate on the ocean floor, which could have formed only underwater, from 550 to 750 million years ago. To prove that land and oceans alike were covered by ice. So, what happens when ice melts, then?
And, it surely did.

Sorry, when I said “underwater” I meant “under liquid water”, since we are discussing the biblical flood myth and not any myth about glaciers. Yes, I know that there is strong evidence that the ice shelves that currently are limited to either high altitudes or high or low latitudes once extended to the equator or at least near there. You are acting like I am supposed to be surprised by this.

This ice wouldn’t have covered every square inch of land, but yes it was extensive. And yes, the ice would have melted, most likely fairly slowly in human terms, and either melted directly into the ocean as modern ice caps over water do, or run into streams and rivers just like modern glaciers over land do. But at no point was the globe covered with water over the highest mountain peaks, or even up to current plains levels. Part of the evidence for global glaciation is a major drop in ocean levels, the ocean levels simply returned to roughly modern levels once the ice melted. In fact this whole thing contradicts your position, because we can tell that the ocean levels dropped and then rose again so we should be able to detect if the oceans rose far higher.

Then, you wrote about all the massive evidence. I think geology and paleontology are facsinating. Only, they’re not in my sphere of interest.

Let me get this straight, because yo are not interested in these fields you can just ignore all the evidence that contradicts your position? This is your problem, you are drawing conclusions based on things you do not understand and apparently have no interest in learning about.

I accept evidence which you don’t. I do not reject evidence, which you do.

How many times do I have to say this: you do reject evidence that I accept. You reject evidence that there was never a worldwide flood. You reject evidence that there was never a worldwide fire. You reject evidence that humans are apes, and evolved from apes. You reject evidence that humans did not all descend from a single pair 6,000 years ago. You reject a lot of evidence that I accept. You keep making this assertion and I keep pointing out how it is wrong yet you still make it.

And you still have refused to provide any of this supposed evidence that I reject. Unless you consider myths from other cultures as evidence, which I don’t.

My first attempt at college in 1975, was a philosophy major, until I withdrew. My second attempt in 1999 was Networking, until I withdrew. I have about 12 college credits, but hundreds of hour OJT in different industrial businessses. I also read my own interests, on the side, while I do blue collar work for a living.

I fail to see how this is relevant, unless you expect me to be impressed by your lack of qualifications. If you don’t know enough to draw a conclusion, then perhaps you should listen to the people who do.

I wish you could have sat in my ‘99 English Compisition 101 class. That Professor, without provocation, bashed God to the class, day in and day out. He sure had some problem with religious people

First of all, this has nothing to do with my actual argument, which you took part of a sentence from out of context. Yes, some people are critical of religion, but they are not trying to force religious people to give up religion like many religious people try to force nonreligious people to accept it. I also fail to see the connection with science. He was an English teacher.

Oh, about Charles Darwin… you can through out bias all you want, but people are biased. It’s a fact of life. To read a persons thumbnail biography, and thing he has no bias, that is naive.

Yes, people have biases, to varying degrees. But the fact that people have bias in no way proves that this specific person has the specific bias you accuse him of having, and even if he did it in no way proves that his entire work about evolution was only attempts to cherry-pick evidence to support this bias, and even if he did it in no way proves that every other biologist in the field since that time also shared that same bias and also cherry-picked evidence in the same way. You are jumping from “people have biases” to “all of evolution is flawed” without anything that supports the connection.

1. I’m not a Creationist.

Then please explain to me how you are different than a creationist. Once again, you seem to think that just saying something or just believing something makes it true.

I’m really not trying to quarrel with you. I merely have a limited education.

Yet that doesn’t stop you from concluding that all of modern biology, geology, physics, astronomy, cosmology, climatology, meteorology, and just about every other branch of science is wrong. Don’t say that you don’t reject these. If you think all humans descended from a single pair 6,000 years ago, if you think there was a global worldwide flood and/or fire since then, if you think all the continents moved to their current places of a relatively small period of time, if you radioactive decay rates have changed, then you reject all of these branches of science. You may not like this fact, you may wish to deny it, but it is how things are. Your position contradicts pretty much all of modern science.

@ Celtic: sorry about that, I misread your comment.

Let me retract something from my last post… it’s pretty clear upon reading that a second time that you did not mean to say “8.3 billion years”, but simply transposed the 8 and the 3. My apologies… I will argue your points, but I don’t want to be merely pedantic for the sake of argument.

I stand by the rest of my post, however.