Am I a fence sitter for being Agnostic?

[basics]

TheLeft,

Oh I can say that God exists not only in my life experiences but by everything that is written in the Bible as actually being the Word of God. OK, let's start again when God made all things for before that there was nothing relating to our universe and beyond and science has come to that conclusion. There was a beginning. Until He made the sun, moon and stars it was Himself that lit everything so when He made these things they shed light and as He spread them out over the heavens that light never wavered or went out and if it never went out its speed didn't matter because it was doing what God made it for. Calcuating today the distance we are from these objects may well be correct but only if their lights had been switched off and at some other point on again meaning that light had to start all over again which it didn't. So why are they so important to mankind? Well just as man once tried to build himself up into heaven, just so man now wants to build himself onto other planets meaning that these distances are important in that quest.

Quote,

Today there are many other PhD scientists who reject evolution and believe that God created in six days, a few thousand years ago, just as recorded in Scripture. Russ Humphreys, a PhD physicist, has developed (among many other things) a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields,5 which enabled him to accurately predict the field strengths of the outer planets. Did a belief in the Bible hinder his research? Not at all. On the contrary, Dr. Humphreys was able to make these predictions precisely because he started from the principles of Scripture. John Baumgardner, a PhD geophysicist and biblical creationist, has a sophisticated computer model of catastrophic plate tectonics, which was reported in the journal Nature; the assumptions for this model are based on the global flood recorded in Genesis. Additionally, think of all the people who have benefited from a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. The MRI scanner was developed by the creationist Dr. Raymond Damadian.6
Dr. John Baumgardner

Dr. John Baumgardner

Consider the biblical creationists Georgia Purdom and Andrew Snelling (both authors in this book), who work in molecular genetics and geology, respectively. They certainly understand their fields, and yet are convinced that they do not support evolutionary biology and geology.7 On the contrary, they confirm biblical creation.

I have a PhD from a secular university and have done extensive research in solar astrophysics. In my PhD research, I made a number of discoveries about the nature of near-surface solar flows, including the detection of a never-before-seen polar alignment of supergranules, as well as patterns indicative of giant overturning cells. Was I hindered in my research by the conviction that the early chapters of Genesis are literally true? No, it’s just the reverse. It is because a logical God created and ordered the universe that I, and other creationists, expect to be able to understand aspects of that universe through logic, careful observation, and experimentation. Unquote. This writing was by Dr Jason Lisle.

So, there are many scientists who believe the Bible's explanation for creation so this little guy who has only experience to stand on is not that surprised by that. One doesn't have to be educated to the highest standard to have found God and His Saviour Jesus Christ. It could well be that these Iron Age goatherders had more skill than you after all you may well be insulting one of your own ancestors.

[Cope]

I refuse to see it because there is no evidence beside hearsay and an old book. I may as well throw a Batman Comic at you and say this is the proof that Gotham City, Batman and the Joker exist. You can't just expect to say "God exists and I don't have to prove anything because... Reasons", and expect to win any argument.

I genuinely do not understand how you get to pick and choose which science and which mathematics you get to believe in. How does that work? Clearly by the virtue that you are writing this on an internet enabled computer you must therefore believe some aspects of science and maths. By the virtue that you go to the shops, buy things with money and are able to calculate the expected change you get back, you must believe in maths. So how come when the science or maths arrives that contradicts the Bible, it's heresy and can't be believed? Maths is just a tool and science is just a method used to quantify and observe the universe. Nothing more. By decrying them all you are doing is shoot the messenger and not the message.

It's just logic. Who do you honestly think has a better grasp of the universe? All the modern day scientists world over with their PhD's, million dollar equipment that enables us to see into the far reaches of the cosmos and peer review system which cuts the intellectual wheat from the chaff? Or a bunch of Iron Age Goat herders who had no education, had no understanding of the universe and could barely read or write?

Occam's razor...

A proclamation of non-belief, when predicated on a lack of scientific evidence, can typically be accepted without further argument: it is, after all, true that God cannot be proven scientifically and I suspect any effort to conquer your self-evident material biases would be an exercise in futility. For instance, were I to offer ontological arguments to support the Christian perspective you would probably accuse me of contradicting my own beliefs by violating the scriptural injuction to accept Christ on the basis faith alone.

Nevertheless, I feel it pertinent to highlight that the dichotomy which you have constructed between Christianity and science/mathematics is false: the latter is a tool for refining our interpretation of the former, not a hammer to smash it with. As is the case with all observable phenomena, scripture is always subject to more perfect explanation. Moreover, whilst it is true that basics' fundamentalism is, prima facie, at odds with observable reality, so too is your material literalism at odds with metaphorical and transpositional imagery. There are a multiplicity of methods by which the truth can be ascertained.

[basics]

Just out of interest may I ask what the speed of darkness is as in both cases of creation and the big bang light came out of darkness? It appears that science has now accepted that there was a beginning just as the bible says so that being correct can I assume that darkness prevailed first and as we have night and day then what speed does darkness travel at?

[Cope]

This is the single greatest thing ever posted on TWC.

[Sar1n]

Just out of interest may I ask what the speed of darkness is as in both cases of creation and the big bang light came out of darkness? It appears that science has now accepted that there was a beginning just as the bible says so that being correct can I assume that darkness prevailed first and as we have night and day then what speed does darkness travel at?

The speed is variable depending on the force of ignorance that is propelling it.

[basics]

The speed is variable depending on the force of ignorance that is propelling it.

So, point out the ignorance!

[Gaidin]

I'm really laughing at the term 'speed of darkness'. The fact that you use this term is at least one point of ignorance.

[Sar1n]

So, point out the ignorance!

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/searc...rchid=16758576

[basics]

I'm really laughing at the term 'speed of darkness'. The fact that you use this term is at least one point of ignorance.

Gaidin,

If there wasn't darkness light would be rather pointless would it not? Perhaps I dig too deep for you as you are embedded to the nothing travels faster than light scenario forgetting that darkness prevailed before there was light. Was it always there perhaps answered by yes it must have been for there to have been a big bang which must be the case since it held energy and matter to cause that. So logically it must have a speed. The easier version of course is that " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." He created it all in darkness until He switched on the light and that before He created the sun, moon and stars which we enjoy today. Life could not exist if we didn't have both.

[Himster]

Gaidin,

If there wasn't darkness light would be rather pointless would it not? Perhaps I dig too deep for you as you are embedded to the nothing travels faster than light scenario forgetting that darkness prevailed before there was light. Was it always there perhaps answered by yes it must have been for there to have been a big bang which must be the case since it held energy and matter to cause that. So logically it must have a speed. The easier version of course is that " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." He created it all in darkness until He switched on the light and that before He created the sun, moon and stars which we enjoy today. Life could not exist if we didn't have both.

Darkness is the absence of light, (it's not a thing in itself) so darkness can appear to travel, like a shadow, it's an illusion that only exists because our human eyes are limited and so our human brains have invented these illusions to make sense of what we see. But even the illusion cannot move faster than light. One might think if one were to somehow project a light onto the moon and cast a shadow with your finger and waggle your finger, moving mere centimetres while the shadow moves thousands of kilometres in the same moment, the speed of light remains constant, it'd be like wiggling a water hose nozzle: the water doesn't flow any faster, even if it looks like it's flowing faster.

Also everything radiates energy of some kind (even if we can't see it with the naked human eye), especially basic elements from the early universe like hydrogen and helium. Time is the measurement of change in space and the earliest elements radiated light, so there was no darkness before light, because there was no "before".

So, there are many scientists who believe the Bible's explanation for creation so this little guy who has only experience to stand on is not that surprised by that.

"Many scientists" would be a gross exaggeration. "An insignificantly tiny percentage of scientists" would be a more factual statement.
In a 1987 survey by Newsweek, it found that less than 0.15% of biologists and earth scientists doubted evolution. The modern number is lower. The national institute of health in 2006 found it to be 0.01%.
This is Young Earth Creationism of course. The percentage of Christian scientists is far higher, some disciplines seeing a parity between secular and religious scientists, so there's no evidence that there's a bias against religious people/thinking in the scientific world. There is only a bias against anti-science notions like Flat-Earth Theory, Young-Earth-Creationism, Alien-intervention, Race-Realism and so on.

It could well be that these Iron Age goatherders had more skill than you after all you may well be insulting one of your own ancestors.

They would have certain skills that we lack today for sure. But our modern sapient skills and our hard won knowledge: they would lack almost all of it. It is no insult to say so.

It appears that science has now accepted that there was a beginning just as the bible says

Yup. The Big Bang Theory was discovered by a Christian scientist/priest and was rejected because it was viewed as a Christian/religious theory. Even the name (Big Bang) was supposed to be a playful lampoon making fun of Christian thinking, for years atheists and scientists laughed at this silly idea. But then the predictions based on the theory turned out to be accurate and he turned out to be correct, ultimately confirmed when the Hubble telescope photographed the background radiation of the universe in the 90s. There is a high degree of irony that now atheists and scientists hold the Big Bang theory as a triumph of secular reasoning and logic over superstition without any consideration for the history of the idea. It is also ironic that the zealot Christians who oppose the scientific method ignore the history of the theory and the role Christians played in it. But there is some tragedy in the sense that Georges Lemaitre is still not hailed as the visionary genius he evidently was in the standardized education system.

[basics]

Dear Ole Himster,

We both have very different opinions which are never going to alter so it will come as no surprise that your definition may well come from overwhelming sources who according to God's word are quite wrong. Jesus said that the path is so narrow that few get in to where He leads so it is no wonder that the majority of unbelieving peoples disbelieve. I repeat that there are many scientists who believe God's version but knowing that to come out and say it would be putting their jobs at risk so many do not for that reason.

[Himster]

Dear Ole Himster,

We both have very different opinions which are never going to alter so it will come as no surprise that your definition may well come from overwhelming sources who according to God's word are quite wrong

It might surprise you that most people would take the word of half a million experts over the claims from your obscure interpretation of the Bible which has consistently demonstrated a shocking lack of scientific literacy.

I repeat that there are many scientists who believe God's version but knowing that to come out and say it would be putting their jobs at risk so many do not for that reason.

And I repeat: it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that there are "many" scientists who believe in the anti-scientific model of young-earth-creationism, all data points to the exact opposite being the case.

[basics]

Himster,

No, it is not absolutely ridiculous at all because of what I have read on the subject. Where does it say in the Bible that God took billions of years to create anything? What wasn't up and running when He signed off on it at the seventh day?

[Himster]

Himster,

No, it is not absolutely ridiculous at all because of what I have read on the subject.

Evidently you've been misled.

Where does it say in the Bible that God took billions of years to create anything? What wasn't up and running when He signed off on it at the seventh day?

If we are to assume that there is a creator deity. Then we have two possible sources of revelation, the first is the objective revelation found in the universe which can be read through scrupulous application of empiricism and the scientific method. The second is the subjective, oft mistranslated and culturally relativistic revelation from sources written by men. With the former source, we can deduce with a high level of confidence that the universe took billions of years to form into what it is today. With the latter sources we find claims that contradict self evident facts about the universe that even children can spot.

Which source of revelation holds more weight? Which source is more practical and useful? Which source is more reliable? (remember, we're even assuming that there is a creator deity)

[basics]

Himster,

Look at it this way. If I laid out my Napoleonic armies on a table made to look realistic which gamers did on a large scale and I had control of everything on it, would all the materials be old or new? Probably old but maybe not as old as they might appear. The thing is I made it up and running to enjoy the game or plan for the game. God created us to have communion with us and did so by speaking all things into being and so all that he created was mature so that things didn't need time or space to be up and running. In other words we were created for Him to enjoy, our enjoyment coming after that. The problem for man, unbelieving man is that he cannot accept a God with that sort of power or the responsiblity that He lays on our shoulders for as Paul laid out, " there is not one who is good for all fall short of the glory of God." So as I said and as is written if any man could have with all his instrumentation stood on the planet on the eighth day he would measure things as being older than day one of creation because God created it that way.

[Himster]

Himster,

Look at it this way. If I laid out my Napoleonic armies on a table made to look realistic which gamers did on a large scale and I had control of everything on it, would all the materials be old or new? Probably old but maybe not as old as they might appear. The thing is I made it up and running to enjoy the game or plan for the game. God created us to have communion with us and did so by speaking all things into being and so all that he created was mature so that things didn't need time or space to be up and running. In other words we were created for Him to enjoy, our enjoyment coming after that. The problem for man, unbelieving man is that he cannot accept a God with that sort of power or the responsiblity that He lays on our shoulders for as Paul laid out, " there is not one who is good for all fall short of the glory of God." So as I said and as is written if any man could have with all his instrumentation stood on the planet on the eighth day he would measure things as being older than day one of creation because God created it that way.

That is a ridiculously convoluted and unnecessary series of disconnected leaps. The far more straight forward and logical rationale is that the universe is exactly as old as scientific facts prove it to be. Why bother introducing all of that anti-science mumbo-jumbo? What kind of psychotic all-powerful God would make the universe appear billions of years old at the moment of creation? Why make the illusion? Why worship a trickster God like that anyway?

[basics]

That is a ridiculously convoluted and unnecessary series of disconnected leaps. The far more straight forward and logical rationale is that the universe is exactly as old as scientific facts prove it to be. Why bother introducing all of that anti-science mumbo-jumbo? What kind of psychotic all-powerful God would make the universe appear billions of years old at the moment of creation? Why make the illusion? Why worship a trickster God like that anyway?

Himster,

Why? Perhaps because He is all powerful. Jesus Christ is that power and He is the One Who is going to take it all away replacing it with a new heaven and earth and no tricks about it since everyone is well warned. Already we can see the move in the climate change argument where some are saying this planet could be dead in a few years and the ones shouting the loudest are not religious at all if we take America as being an example. In fact the same people are all for tearing down borders making way, although they can't see it, for the one world system which must come before Jesus comes back. Probably I won't be around when that happens but some of you may well be when He does and hopefully I will be with Him as He descends in majesty for some and fear for most. Then, " every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord," without exception. Trickster! I don't think so.

[Himster]

Why? Perhaps because He is all powerful.

If he's all powerful, then he needn't have made the trick and deception of having the universe appear to be billions of years old by all objective standards. He didn't have to bury million year old fossils in earth that was only a few moments old, he didn't have to place billion year old light from distant stars on the trajectory to Earth or the trillion other little pranks to trick all scientifically inclined minds to reject his biblical teachings in Genesis. But if we are to believe your account, that is exactly what your god did.

[basics]

If he's all powerful, then he needn't have made the trick and deception of having the universe appear to be billions of years old by all objective standards. He didn't have to bury million year old fossils in earth that was only a few moments old, he didn't have to place billion year old light from distant stars on the trajectory to Earth or the trillion other little pranks to trick all scientifically inclined minds to reject his biblical teachings in Genesis. But if we are to believe your account, that is exactly what your god did.

Himster,

Because He made all things up and running in a matured fashion in no way implies that God tried to trick anyone. If you do feel tricked and I don't believe for one minute that you do it is really because you can't or won't accept that God could any of these things and more, placing your faith on a theory that excludes Him completely. I mean that theory is all we don't know for sure or we assume by what we see to make a little sense of it all. God tells us exactly what happened and being there when it did surely carries more weight than anything coming from them that weren't. I mean how did Job know to write what God asked him about His spreading the stars across the galaxies? How did he know about the circle of the earth had not God told him? No my friend it is you that has got it all wrong for one day you'll see that He is not just my God but yours too.

[Himster]

Himster,

Because He made all things up and running in a matured fashion in no way implies that God tried to trick anyone.

If the Universe is six thousand years old, then the careful curation of million year old fossils designed to look perfectly millions of years old can only be called a trick.

If you do feel tricked and I don't believe for one minute that you do it is really because you can't or won't accept that God could any of these things and more, placing your faith on a theory that excludes Him completely.

Science/evolution does not exclude gods completely. It excludes young earth creationism because we can see with the naked eye that it contradicts our senses.

I mean that theory is all we don't know for sure or we assume by what we see to make a little sense of it all.

We do know for sure that the universe is older than 6000 years old and that the earth is round and that the earth orbits the sun.

God tells us exactly what happened and being there when it did surely carries more weight than anything coming from them that weren't.

If God created the universe then what we see in the universe carries more weight than some obscure misinterpretation you have made from some book.

I mean how did Job know to write what God asked him about His spreading the stars across the galaxies?

Cosmology pre-existed writing.

How did he know about the circle of the earth had not God told him?

The earth is a sphere, not a circle.

The one truly remarkable thing about Christianity is how few of them believe in your interpretation of the Young Earth Theory. I think Christians should be commended more for their acceptance of and contributions to science and I'm sure all of us here are glad that your Young Earth Theory is dying out. Three cheers for progress.