What do religious/creationists think about fossiles?

[QUOTE="Penguinchow"]

I see your point in that miracles cannot be scientific evaluated. But God is believed to exist outside the limitations of science and nature so anytime he directly changes it then there is no point in trying to explain it scientifically, it ceases to become a scientific thing and becomes a religious thing. Easy there, science does not in any way try to explain our purpose here. THAT is what religion is for. You are correct, science is the best way to get good information about the world around you. Religion is here for that purpose and meaning. RationalAtheist

Its like, first you say God is part of nature, then you say God exists outside nature. When you say "there is no point in trying to explain it scientifically" you debase the scientific framework for DISCOVERY. Why is this boundary there, where religion steps in? Why has the boundary shrunk? Why so many different faiths?

Of course science endevours to exlpain why we are here. How can you trust a religion, when you know the evolution of humans on Earth has encompased many civlilisations with many different belief systems and practices. How do you know that your own specific interpretation of your divided branch of religion is the right one? How can you make a rational decision about your purpose with that sort of choice?

Religious meaning changes with time and as the faiths divide as the quibble over their assumptive interpretations from documents the presume to have divine qualities. The plethora of equally valid faith systems makes the choice meaningless for me.

These meanings are the correct meanings. The sources you cite always seem to agree with me.

So far, all you've had are "You're being silly," "You can't argue," "I'm right, you're wrong," and "Ooh, look at this Wikipedia article!"

I think I'd do fine.

Theokhoth

First line from wiki:

Relativismis the idea that some elements or aspects ofexperienceorcultureare relative to, i.e., dependent on, other elements or aspects.

Truth relativism from wiki:

Relativism -The term often refers totruthrelativism, which is the doctrine that there are noabsolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference.

I gave you the link and explained the way ideas evolve within science.

I dispute I've said all of those things you accuse me of - and that is in itself a valid reason for thinking I couldn't have an reasonable argument with you. In addition to misrepresenting me, you have written some of those things yourself against me, which seems quite hypocritical of you. We can prove this by reading back over the thread. I do sense that you are spoiling for an argument. Perhaps we define "argument" differently. I think its a courteous exchange of ideas. It seems that you obviously think differently.

Goodnight.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

These meanings are the correct meanings. The sources you cite always seem to agree with me.

So far, all you've had are "You're being silly," "You can't argue," "I'm right, you're wrong," and "Ooh, look at this Wikipedia article!"

I think I'd do fine.

RationalAtheist

First line from wiki:

Relativismis the idea that some elements or aspects ofexperienceorcultureare relative to, i.e., dependent on, other elements or aspects.

Truth relativism from wiki:

Relativism -The term often refers totruthrelativism, which is the doctrine that there are noabsolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference.

I gave you the link and explained the way ideas evolve within science.

With what? Evidence! And evidence is? Objective! And objectivity is? The antithesis of relativism! Science builds on objective knowledge; meaning the truth is not relative to a point of any frame of reference because science eliminates relativity with objective evidence!

I dispute I've said all of those things you accuse me of - and that is in itself a valid reason for thinking I couldn't have an reasonable argument with you.

Dispute all you want; that's your only way of arguing.

In addition to misrepresenting me, you have written some of those things yourself against me, which seems quite hypocritical of you. We can prove this by reading back over the thread.

Here's what we can prove by reading back over the thread:

You have quoted a Wikipedia article that directly and explicitly contradicts your position

You do not know the definition of relativism nor the purpose of science in eliminating it

You have called me "silly" as though to refute me at least twice

You invoked the sadsack routine when backed into a corner.

I do sense that you are spoiling for an argument. Perhaps we define "argument" differently. I think its a courteous exchange of ideas. It seems that you obviously think differently.

Goodnight.

Ciao.

Sigh God created nature but exists outside of it. Just as someone can create a painting but exist outside of it and still have total control over what happens to it. The way i decided that my specific interpretation of my branch of religion is correct is based on a long process of study, thought, and reasoning. It's just what makes sense to me. I have also studied the plethora of other faiths and none of them ring true like this one. I realize that its kind of dirty of me to abandon the argument right here but I've got an aeronautics test tomorrow and I've got to study. It's been nice discussing this with you however, and I will keep you in my prayers whether you like it or not ;) . Keep asking questions however. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear(Jefferson). Penguinchow

You didn't have to explain, so the sigh sounds rather patronising.

The idea of God's total control introduces the amoral uncaring dimension to the universal artist.

You say you've done loads of study, thought and reasoning about your faith, but your still picking your chosen one, based on a "ring of truth". Would you like to earn 50,000? I'm really an East African businessman, etc...

Thanks for an enjoyable chat. Sorry for any offence! The abandonment of rational argument happens all the time. It also usually ends with a prayer too.I think you's be better off studying for your test instead of praying, but still - whatever gets you high! (see what I did there?)

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

These meanings are the correct meanings. The sources you cite always seem to agree with me.

So far, all you've had are "You're being silly," "You can't argue," "I'm right, you're wrong," and "Ooh, look at this Wikipedia article!"

I think I'd do fine.

Theokhoth

First line from wiki:

Relativismis the idea that some elements or aspects ofexperienceorcultureare relative to, i.e., dependent on, other elements or aspects.

Truth relativism from wiki:

Relativism -The term often refers totruthrelativism, which is the doctrine that there are noabsolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference.

I gave you the link and explained the way ideas evolve within science.

With what? Evidence! And evidence is? Objective! And objectivity is? The antithesis of relativism! Science builds on objective knowledge; meaning the truth is not relative to a point of any frame of reference because science eliminates relativity with objective evidence!

I dispute I've said all of those things you accuse me of - and that is in itself a valid reason for thinking I couldn't have an reasonable argument with you.

Dispute all you want; that's your only way of arguing.

In addition to misrepresenting me, you have written some of those things yourself against me, which seems quite hypocritical of you. We can prove this by reading back over the thread.

Here's what we can prove by reading back over the thread:

You have quoted a Wikipedia article that directly and explicitly contradicts your position

You do not know the definition of relativism nor the purpose of science in eliminating it

You have called me "silly" as though to refute me at least twice

You invoked the sadsack routine when backed into a corner.

I do sense that you are spoiling for an argument. Perhaps we define "argument" differently. I think its a courteous exchange of ideas. It seems that you obviously think differently.

Goodnight.

Ciao.

The relativist frame of reference I'm discussing is the scientific model of understanding.

I further justified my relativistic usage by constraining it to truth relativism. Unless you argue that scientific knowledge is absolute, its relative.

Disputing is a good way of arguing. As opposed to ad-hominem attacks and red-herrings.

Are you plural now with your use of "we"? Are there people gathered round your screen, or are you trying to feel self-important?

Here's what I've established from this thread:

You misconstrue a definition and try twisting, without ever really explaining its alternative definitions or opposition to my definitions, explanations, links and quotes.

The thread continues to get de-railed with your assertions that have no impact on what I was saying. In this context, objecivitism, skepticism, pragmatism and relativism are fairly interchangeable words for explaining how science takes accepts changing beliefs.

You resort to self agrandisement and ad-hominem attacks.

Its probably best to ignore you from now on.

Guten Abend.

The relativist frame of reference I'm discussing is the scientific model of understanding.

Except the scientific model of understanding is not relativistic.

I further justified my relativistic usage by constraining it to truth relativism. Unless you argue that scientific knowledge is absolute, its relative.

Scientific knowledge is objective; absolute v. relative is a false dilemma. In addition, truth relativism is where people believe the truth--reality itself--is based on opinion. SCIENCE DISAGREES.

Disputing is a good way of arguing. As opposed to ad-hominem attacks and red-herrings.

Exactly what red herrings have I used?

Are you plural now with your use of "we"? Are there people gathered round your screen, or are you trying to feel self-important?

My use of "we" isn't meant for me, here, at my computer. ;)

Here's what I've established from this thread:

You misconstrue a definition and try twisting, without ever really explaining its alternative definitions or opposition to my definitions, explanations, links and quotes.

You've given one link, one quote from that link (after I quoted its direct contradiction that greed with me that YOU never explained). You are making up an alternate definition; there is no other alternative definition for relativism: Relativism, truth or moral or otherwise, is the belief that xyz is based purely on opinion, and science is antithetical to that.

The thread continues to get de-railed with your assertions that have no impact on what I was saying.

Such as? Like you haven't made any assertions yourself. "You're silly." :roll:

In this context, objecivitism, skepticism, pragmatism and relativism are fairly interchangeable words for explaining how science takes accepts changing beliefs.

Now you're copy/pasting Wikipedia again. And seeing as they have definitions that are galaxies apart from eachother, no, they are not interchangeable.

You resort to self agrandisement and ad-hominem attacks.

Exactly howso?

Its probably best to ignore you from now on.

Why acknowledge when you can ignore?

Guten Abend.

Скатертью дорога.

RationalAtheist

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

You didn't introduce yourself, state your position, quote tree my comments, but added your own words as mine, then said you were busy.

Now you accuse me of shouting at you.

Have you been to charm school? You certainly know how to make someone want to answer your questions.

RationalAtheist

Wait, are you yelling now?

I wrote in all caps so my responses would look different from your questions.

With you being lazy, critical, unfriendly and not having much time, do you understand why I can't particularly be bothered answering your questions?

*Snicker* And I'm the one doing the self-aggrandizement. :roll:

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

The relativist frame of reference I'm discussing is the scientific model of understanding.

Except the scientific model of understanding is not relativistic.

I further justified my relativistic usage by constraining it to truth relativism. Unless you argue that scientific knowledge is absolute, its relative.

Scientific knowledge is objective; absolute v. relative is a false dilemma. In addition, truth relativism is where people believe the truth--reality itself--is based on opinion. SCIENCE DISAGREES.

Disputing is a good way of arguing. As opposed to ad-hominem attacks and red-herrings.

Exactly what red herrings have I used?

Are you plural now with your use of "we"? Are there people gathered round your screen, or are you trying to feel self-important?

My use of "we" isn't meant for me, here, at my computer. ;)

Here's what I've established from this thread:

You misconstrue a definition and try twisting, without ever really explaining its alternative definitions or opposition to my definitions, explanations, links and quotes.

You've given one link, one quote from that link (after I quoted its direct contradiction that greed with me that YOU never explained). You are making up an alternate definition; there is no other alternative definition for relativism: Relativism, truth or moral or otherwise, is the belief that xyz is based purely on opinion, and science is antithetical to that.

The thread continues to get de-railed with your assertions that have no impact on what I was saying.

Such as? Like you haven't made any assertions yourself. "You're silly." :roll:

In this context, objecivitism, skepticism, pragmatism and relativism are fairly interchangeable words for explaining how science takes accepts changing beliefs.

Now you're copy/pasting Wikipedia again. And seeing as they have definitions that are galaxies apart from eachother, no, they are not interchangeable.

You resort to self agrandisement and ad-hominem attacks.

Exactly howso?

Its probably best to ignore you from now on.

Why acknowledge when you can ignore?

Guten Abend.

Скатертью дорога.

Theokhoth

Yes the scientific framework is, when truth relativiem is applied, i.e. its either absolute or relative. If you can't grasp truth relativism, I can'thelp you further.

What do you mean by false dilemma? Where do you get your definition of truth relativism from? How can you impose your frame of reference on it?

This whole debate into the nature of the word relativism is the red herring. I think we both agree that scientific models change with discovery. That was the original point I was making to contrast faith and science - all those thread pages ago. Since we both agree with that statement, we are arguing over semantics - an irrelevence to the point I was making.

Your use of we isn't meant for you, there at your computer? Well, that makes a lot of sense.

I can't help it if you can't take in definitions from the links I provide. Lets agree to differ here. I'm strictly using relative in opposition to absolte in this context. Any extra meaning you inferred was not intended. If you'd prefer to read Objectivism instead of relativism, then fine. Personally, I think abstact concepts of the absolute vs. relative are more closesly aligned than those concerning absolute vs. objective.

You accuse me of not making any assertions myself. If that's the case, why did you initially respond to my post in the first place?

Making rolly eyes has a deep impact.

I didn't actually knowingly quote wiki with my claims on the interchageability of these terms. How dare you accuse me of it! Rather than explain your case, you resort to wild exaguration and repeat your rejection again - profound stuff.

You resort to self agrandisement by becoming "we" and launch ad-hominem attacks - well you know what you wrote. It says quite a bit about you.

Ignoring, dodging and insulting is much more fun than arguing properly, eh?

Au Reviour!

Yes the scientific framework is, when truth relativiem is applied, i.e. its either absolute or relative. If you can't grasp truth relativism, I can'thelp you further.

Truth relativism is when the truth is put up as a matter of opinion. Science seeks to eliminate opinion through methodological experimentation. If you can't grasp either of those concepts, tough nuggets.

What do you mean by false dilemma? Where do you get your definition of truth relativism from? How can you impose your frame of reference on it?

A false dilemma is when you make it appear as though there are only two choices when that is not the case. It's not absolutism or relativism; there's also objectivity (not "objectivism," as you said, seeing as objectivism is a political philosophy created by Ayn Rand :roll: ). Where do you get your definition? Your Wikipedia link certainly doesn't agree with you.

This whole debate into the nature of the word relativism is the red herring. I think we both agree that scientific models change with discovery. That was the original point I was making to contrast faith and science - all those thread pages ago. Since we both agree with that statement, we are arguing over semantics - an irrelevence to the point I was making.

You called science relative. . . .this isn't the case. It's not a matter of definition; it's a matter of you calling something relative when it isn't. It's the equivalent of me calling religion "red" and defining "red" as "blue."

Your use of we isn't meant for you, there at your computer? Well, that makes a lot of sense.

Good.

I can't help it if you can't take in definitions from the links I provide.

You say "links" as though you provided more than one.You say "links" as though the one you posted doesn't contradict what you said.

Lets agree to differ here. I'm strictly using relative in opposition to absolte in this context. Any extra meaning you inferred was not intended. If you'd prefer to read Objectivism instead of relativism, then fine.

I don't like Objectivism; it's too Capitalistic. Objectivity, on the other hand, is awesome.

Personally, I think abstact concepts of the absolute vs. relative are more closesly aligned than those concerning absolute vs. objective.

You accuse me of not making any assertions myself. If that's the case, why did you initially respond to my post in the first place?

Derp, sarcasm, and the "Assertions" in question are insults.

Making rolly eyes has a deep impact.

:roll:

I didn't actually knowingly quote wiki with my claims on the interchageability of these terms. How dare you accuse me of it! Rather than explain your case, you resort to wild exaguration and repeat your rejection again - profound stuff.

Oh, please; you quoted the exact same words in the exact same order. :lol:

You resort to self agrandisement by becoming "we" and launch ad-hominem attacks - well you know what you wrote. It says quite a bit about you.

ME saying "we" is self-aggrandizing? How does that work, exactly? :lol:

Ignoring, dodging and insulting is much more fun than arguing properly, eh?

You should know; it's all you seem to do.

Au Reviour!

RationalAtheist

Are you leaving or not? Twice now you've said you're going to ignore me and thrice now you've said "good night," so make up your mind already.

/VERY ROLLLY EYES/

Theokhoth

You've been makling the same tired old wrong comments with no explanations to back you up all night. Truth relativism is the opposition to absolutism. You can't even keep within this websites rules for discussion and quote chaining, prefferring instead to colour in snipes. Please stop edfiting my quote chains, since I didn't say the stuff in blue you attribute to me.

I'm talking about philosophical realism now - are you sticking to your own persaonlised restrcted definitions again? I'm sorry you didn't know about objectivism.

I didn't call science relative. Please don't take what I said out of context. I've said that scientific truths are NOT absolute. That is all - anything else YOU THINK I'VE SAID has been your own mind playing tricks on you, through your narrow and ewrroneous definitions.

You use of "we" makes utterly no sense to me, unless you feel threatened by debate. Well done for turning antother thread into a point-scoring bickering name-calling content - that's real growed up of you.

Ah, do you think philosophical realism is to capitalistic? I can now undertstand a bit moe how you're getting confused. You did know that words can have more than one meaning, right? :lol: You are repeatedly getting them wrong now.

I don't undertstand your "derp sarcasm" comment. I didn't throw ad-hominem attacks when you seem to cencede that you did throw a few. Name calling is a sure sign that you're at a last resort and loosing your argument. If theres one of you and you start saying "we", it presents an appeal to popularity. You're asserting that someone else shares your view - duh!

On top of that, you accuse me of lying in stealing a quote from Wiki - I demand that you provide some evidence for your deceitful and unfounded accusation to back you up.You said goodbye too - but It seems like you can't keep away from me!Remember - keep to quote chaining guidelines!

Carbon dating is a lie.

Those bones were put there and are fake. I blame atheists.

First of all, it's young earth creationists who don't acknowledge evolution. (not all creationists are young earth creationists) I've seen just about every arguement they have, so I will answer on their behalf.

According to them, apes and humans are two different things. They believe that humans were created spontaneously, as the book of Genesis records. They also believe that animals were created spontaneously, and that they were on the ark with dinosaurs. (The dinosaurs couldn't have died before the ark because that is putting death before sin)

dracula_16

Now that is very interesting...zmbi_gmr leaves GS to go ponder this

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]

I don't know of any Christians that don't believe in evolution (at least to an extent) or any that believe we walking with Dinosaurs or anything like that.

[QUOTE="dracula_16"]

First of all, it's young earth creationists who don't acknowledge evolution. (not all creationists are young earth creationists) I've seen just about every arguement they have, so I will answer on their behalf.

According to them, apes and humans are two different things. They believe that humans were created spontaneously, as the book of Genesis records. They also believe that animals were created spontaneously, and that they were on the ark with dinosaurs. (The dinosaurs couldn't have died before the ark because that is putting death before sin)

zmbi_gmr

Now that is very interesting...zmbi_gmr leaves GS to go ponder this

I thought about this for a few minutes (i apologise if someone already argued this post), but I find this belief to be inacurate. You see when the Ark was made sin existed on Earth. Sin is why God flooded the Earth. Sin began in the garden of Eden. The Ark was built after Adam and Eve were in the Garden. I realise this isn't your belief, but rather just the views of some. I had to put my 2 cents in on the subject:P

Dear god, you really are a funny one putting those little fossils around just for a wee and joke and to 'test our faith' I've been punked again. How deceptive of you, you crack me up.

amen

*munches on popcorn in amusement*ghoklebutter

[QUOTE="unholymight"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Theokhoth

I have to work on my essay.

Since it would be a cheap shot for me to leave a response to this and leave, I'm leaving with nothing ...

...

for now.

(hehehe)

Oh, poo. I have homework too, you know; I just keep in sight of what's important.

Homework? What the hell, how old are you dude? If you're this smart and you're still at school, I'm worried.....

Also, RationalAtheist, If you make a thread about your point of view, I'd love to participate in a debate over it...This particular thread is too messy to step into, ans I can't be botehred to retrospectively read all the posts....

Fossils were put on earth by satan to pull us further from the word of god.Engrish_Major

Myself and alot of other Christians believe that the seven days it took God to create the Earth may have been seven days by God's interpretation, but could have been longer by human standards. For example a day for God is like 500 million years for a human. In those days (billions of years) God would have created that Earth and its creatures and those creatures would have changed over time (evolution).

Myself and alot of other Christians believe that the seven days it took God to create the Earth may have been seven days by God's interpretation, but could have been longer by human standards. For example a day for God is like 500 million years for a human. In those days (billions of years) God would have created that Earth and its creatures and those creatures would have changed over time (evolution).

bacon_is_sweet

[QUOTE="bacon_is_sweet"]

Myself and alot of other Christians believe that the seven days it took God to create the Earth may have been seven days by God's interpretation, but could have been longer by human standards. For example a day for God is like 500 million years for a human. In those days (billions of years) God would have created that Earth and its creatures and those creatures would have changed over time (evolution).

curono

Its called faith buddy, and whats to say I can't interpret a day for God is longer then an actual day? The bible is full of metaphors and sayings that are open to interpretation. This is just one idea I've considered.

[QUOTE="curono"][QUOTE="bacon_is_sweet"]

Myself and alot of other Christians believe that the seven days it took God to create the Earth may have been seven days by God's interpretation, but could have been longer by human standards. For example a day for God is like 500 million years for a human. In those days (billions of years) God would have created that Earth and its creatures and those creatures would have changed over time (evolution).

Its called faith buddy, and whats to say I can't interpret a day for God is longer then an actual day? The bible is full of metaphors and sayings that are open to interpretation. This is just one idea I've considered.

Also, RationalAtheist, If you make a thread about your point of view, I'd love to participate in a debate over it...This particular thread is too messy to step into, ans I can't be botehred to retrospectively read all the posts....

shaunk89

I'm an OT responder, rather than a thread creator. I also wouldn't know what point of view you'd want to debate. If there's a specific concern you have over my beliefs, then I'd be happy to discuss things with you too. PM me, or you create a thread and let me know, or...

The atheism union board is probably a better place to create this sort of specific religious thread - there is less "noise" there than here in OT, more debate - and anyone of any belief is welcome to contribute. I'd be prepared to create a thread there for us. Cheers for expressing interest in debate!

(Please don't read the above as a union recruitment advert - it is only a suggestion of a suitable forum of discussion. Thanks!)

In my life a situation revealed to me that one minutes worth of time in Gods eyes is equivalent to one days worth of time here on Earth. I realize this is a fallible notion that I am not able to prove, but given the circumstances that this was revealed to me I have an inkling that this may be truth. The memory is quite private so I will explain it using a false situation that contains the very same context without revealing my private memory. Let's say your mom is pregnant with your soon to be little brother or sister, and she tells you one day that God has spoken to her and revealed that she will give birth to your new sibling in 3 minutes. Obviously her water hasn't broke, nor have her contractions began so 3 minutes is highly unlikely, but rather in 3 days exactly she gives birth to your new little brother or sister. Out of this situation you figure that 1 minute of Gods time is = to 1 day of our time here on Earth. I know this sounds far fetched, but it was something that I lived through that made me ponder such a thing. I may not be right, but I honestly can say that such a thing has happened to me in my life. Sorry I can't reveal what really happened. It would bring an emotion out that I am not willing to share on a web site that loves to debate such matters, but after reading your comment I just felt as if I should chime in.

Myself and alot of other Christians believe that the seven days it took God to create the Earth may have been seven days by God's interpretation, but could have been longer by human standards. For example a day for God is like 500 million years for a human. In those days (billions of years) God would have created that Earth and its creatures and those creatures would have changed over time (evolution).

bacon_is_sweet

The problem with taking genesis literally is that there's a lot more wrong with it than the timeline. Even assuming the seven days can mean any length time, that still doesn't explain the glaring errors in logic/facts such as the fact that God created night and day before he created the sun and stars.

Granted theism and science aren't incompatibel per se, but I wouldn't extend this marriage to a theism directed towards some form of God which is believed to regularly interfere with the supposed creation, for then if one collects evidence, how can one determine whether the evidence is the result of natural or immediately divine phenomena?

Fossils were put on earth by satan to pull us further from the word of god.Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="bacon_is_sweet"]

[QUOTE="curono"] How can you know what a day is for god? Or what god "understands" as a day?curono

Its called faith buddy, and whats to say I can't interpret a day for God is longer then an actual day? The bible is full of metaphors and sayings that are open to interpretation. This is just one idea I've considered.

Thats cool, all I was saying is one shouldn't instantly assume they meant an actual day. :)