Yet another religion-focused poll...

[comic boy]

Yes believing that Adam lived 930 years is perfectly reasonable

[jonesthecurl]

Yeh, widow - two kids. Beaut.

I spent most of my life not knowing what I wanted to be when I grew up ( and not wanting to grow up). The perfect career for me turned out to be "Parent". It's a lovely thing to be.

[WidowMakers]

Congrats on the new little one, if you're into that kind of thing. You're a bigger person than I if you can handle one kid, much less two.

It is really not that bad. My wife is having the biggest issue. She just can't get much sleep. Plus she has been tired a lot during the last several months anyway.

But onto the kids thing. If you don't have kids who will carry one your disgust and disagreement with Christians and their beliefs after you are gone?

I read an interesting article a while back that said liberal people (pro choice, pro gay marriage, pro evolution) are having less babies and thus having less people to pass along their ideals and beliefs. But I guess that is another thread.

[WidowMakers]

Yeh, widow - two kids. Beaut.

I spent most of my life not knowing what I wanted to be when I grew up ( and not wanting to grow up). The perfect career for me turned out to be "Parent". It's a lovely thing to be.

It is truley great. I love to see the joy in Riley's eye when we interact and play.

I have a girl (2 yrs) and a boy (5 days).
Riley and Nicklas are two of the best things that have ever happened to me.

[WidowMakers]

Yes believing that Adam lived 930 years is perfectly reasonable

Try these.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/longlife.html
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/adamsage.html

If you go into a discussion "knowing the answer", regardless of what you see, you will ignore anything else that contradicts what you believe.

WM

[joecoolfrog]

Yes believing that Adam lived 930 years is perfectly reasonable

Try these.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/longlife.html
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/adamsage.html

If you go into a discussion "knowing the answer", regardless of what you see, you will ignore anything else that contradicts what you believe.

WM

Oh the irony of you saying that

[joecoolfrog]

Congrats on the new little one, if you're into that kind of thing. You're a bigger person than I if you can handle one kid, much less two.

It is really not that bad. My wife is having the biggest issue. She just can't get much sleep. Plus she has been tired a lot during the last several months anyway.

But onto the kids thing. If you don't have kids who will carry one your disgust and disagreement with Christians and their beliefs after you are gone?

I read an interesting article a while back that said liberal people (pro choice, pro gay marriage, pro evolution) are having less babies and thus having less people to pass along their ideals and beliefs. But I guess that is another thread.

Firstly congrats on the new kid but I hope you are going to allow him to form his own opinions rather than just spoon feed him your ideals and beliefs.

[daddy1gringo]

Yes believing that Adam lived 930 years is perfectly reasonable

Try these.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/longlife.html
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/adamsage.html

If you go into a discussion "knowing the answer", regardless of what you see, you will ignore anything else that contradicts what you believe.

WM

Oh the irony of you saying that

Well, I think that was his point. The stereotype is the religious people making up their minds before the facts and then looking at everything through a filter, but I think if you are honest, you have to admit that those who choose the opposite belief are not immune to this fault either.

[daddy1gringo]

As for my position on the thread subject, I spoke about it in another thread, but will say it again.

For many years, as a Christian who believes that the Bible is the revealed word of God, I believed in evolution and a figurative interpretation of Genesis. I became convinced of creationism and a literal interpretation of Genesis by the fossil record, which I believe is much more consistent with Genesis than with evolutionary theory.

I think I refute the claim, frequently and mockingly made, that creationists ignore scientific fact because it would destroy their faith. If evolution were proven, it would not trouble my faith; I would just re-adjust my opinion on the subject and return to my former belief in "theistic evolution." My faith was just fine before and would be just fine after.

[joecoolfrog]

I am not a Scientist so I trust the overwhelming scientific opinion, it does not mean they are definitely correct but it is the logical decision to make.
WM choose to include 2 links that less than 1% of the relevent scientific community would agree with, he does not agree with them on the basis of probability or logic but simply because they give some creedance to what he wishes to believe.
If you are going to tell us that both stances are equally logical then im sorry but you are working from a position that few people would understand.
It seriously grates on me that creationists will go to huge lengths to debunk reputable scientific theories yet grasp at utterly discredited ideas to fit a preconceived view, its dishonest basicly. The truth is that most Atheists/Agnostics were brought up by parents with religious views, we have come to our conclusions about the bible from a neutral position at best, our decisions were based on logical analysis so no I dont accept that the majority had or have any fixed agenda to accomodate.

[Neoteny]

Congrats on the new little one, if you're into that kind of thing. You're a bigger person than I if you can handle one kid, much less two.

It is really not that bad. My wife is having the biggest issue. She just can't get much sleep. Plus she has been tired a lot during the last several months anyway.

But onto the kids thing. If you don't have kids who will carry one your disgust and disagreement with Christians and their beliefs after you are gone?

I read an interesting article a while back that said liberal people (pro choice, pro gay marriage, pro evolution) are having less babies and thus having less people to pass along their ideals and beliefs. But I guess that is another thread.

While the thought of raising little mes to continue harassing theists down the ages does appeal to me greatly, I am hesitant to consider doing so for a multitude of reasons. There are too many people as is. And people are idiots. I'm deadly serious when it comes to such cynicism (and I'm not leaving myself out of that classification). Why the hell would I want to contribute to that? Really, I'd seriously consider raising someone else's idiot (all the while skewing their political opinions toward the left, of course. I'm of the opinion that it's impossible to not influence your children in major ways when it comes to their upbringing. It's our responsibility to try to deafen that as much as possible though) before contributing my own idiot to the growing pool.

There's a sense of missing out on my perspective of eternal life (passing on my genes for incredible intelligence, sexy abs, and debonair style, etc), but I'm really not even focused much on that at this point in my life. I've always considered concepts of eternal presence rather selfish anyhow, and a unbecoming in many other ways.

I'd say that the article's conclusion makes sense to me, and it is a hypothesis I've posited in the past. I'm sure that discussion might be a can of worms that I don't wish to open at the moment, but it's interesting to think about.

[WidowMakers]

Yes believing that Adam lived 930 years is perfectly reasonable

Try these.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/longlife.html
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/adamsage.html

If you go into a discussion "knowing the answer", regardless of what you see, you will ignore anything else that contradicts what you believe.

WM

Oh the irony of you saying that

Well, I think that was his point. The stereotype is the religious people making up their minds before the facts and then looking at everything through a filter, but I think if you are honest, you have to admit that those who choose the opposite belief are not immune to this fault either.

Yes that was my point. I have looked at the things the atheists have said in these forums. Many of them have made me question things I believe. I have then looked over everything again. Not just looking at one little specific area of science, but the whole thing. How everything relates back to each other. And again I have come back to my beliefs.

So please don't tell me I have not looked at the other side. I have. But the "facts" of evolution are not facts at all. They do not all come together. They change to fit the needs of the time. New theories and new "facts" all the time. The bend and break all the time to "solve" the mystery of the universe.

My beliefs have not changed. They remain the same all the time. They do not change with the times. They do not need to be adjusted to fit the current culture or thoughts of man.

WM

[Juan_Bottom]

For many years, as a Christian who believes that the Bible is the revealed word of God, I believed in evolution and a figurative interpretation of Genesis. I became convinced of creationism and a literal interpretation of Genesis by the fossil record, which I believe is much more consistent with Genesis than with evolutionary theory.

Could you hop on over to the evolution vs. creationism thread and tell me where? This is something that I would like to see evidenced for myself. This isn't a call-out or anything, but I have looked at the same thing you have(presumably) and I don't know what you are specifically talking about.

The truth is that most Atheists/Agnostics were brought up by parents with religious views, we have come to our conclusions about the bible from a neutral position at best,

Yup, my family is definitly religious. I finally jumped ship in Junior High. And now I spoil every christmas.

[joecoolfrog]

Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory which is tested and extended constantly,that is the nature of science. Creationism is a rigid concept, it is not scientific and should never be taught as anything other than a fundamental religious belief. It is not possible to compare the 2 because evolution is testable but creationism is not, we can easily prove the planet is over10,000 years old but there is no way that creationists can prove it is not. In short if you claim that creationism is the correct answer then you are saying that 99% of Geologists are wrong, 99% of Biologists are wrong.99% of Anthropologists are wrong,its an absurd position to take on the basis of logical analysis.

[joecoolfrog]

Yes believing that Adam lived 930 years is perfectly reasonable

Try these.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/longlife.html
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/adamsage.html

If you go into a discussion "knowing the answer", regardless of what you see, you will ignore anything else that contradicts what you believe.

WM

Oh the irony of you saying that

Well, I think that was his point. The stereotype is the religious people making up their minds before the facts and then looking at everything through a filter, but I think if you are honest, you have to admit that those who choose the opposite belief are not immune to this fault either.

Yes that was my point. I have looked at the things the atheists have said in these forums. Many of them have made me question things I believe. I have then looked over everything again. Not just looking at one little specific area of science, but the whole thing. How everything relates back to each other. And again I have come back to my beliefs.

So please don't tell me I have not looked at the other side. I have. But the "facts" of evolution are not facts at all. They do not all come together. They change to fit the needs of the time. New theories and new "facts" all the time. The bend and break all the time to "solve" the mystery of the universe.

My beliefs have not changed. They remain the same all the time. They do not change with the times. They do not need to be adjusted to fit the current culture or thoughts of man.

WM

Fine then please find me a link ( from a non religious source ) with clear proof that NO fossil on earth is over 10,000 years old because I bet I can find hundreds of links from unbiased scientific organisations proving the opposite.

[jonesthecurl]

Hubble can see galaxies whose light has taken millions of years to reach us.
Discuss.

[Snorri1234]

Hubble can see galaxies whose light has taken millions of years to reach us.
Discuss.

The speed of light is a conspiracy.

[PLAYER57832]

As for my position on the thread subject, I spoke about it in another thread, but will say it again.

For many years, as a Christian who believes that the Bible is the revealed word of God, I believed in evolution and a figurative interpretation of Genesis. I became convinced of creationism and a literal interpretation of Genesis by the fossil record, which I believe is much more consistent with Genesis than with evolutionary theory.

I think I refute the claim, frequently and mockingly made, that creationists ignore scientific fact because it would destroy their faith. If evolution were proven, it would not trouble my faith; I would just re-adjust my opinion on the subject and return to my former belief in "theistic evolution." My faith was just fine before and would be just fine after.

Sorry, but I have heard just about every variation on this. There certainly could be more out there, but the real truth is that you likely misunderstand evolution AND the supposed proofs of Creationism.

This was covered extensively in Widowmaker's creation thread, by quite a few people, but the gist of it is that Evolution (big E -- the theory) does not mean a smooth progression, does not mean that people came from apes ... and as a general idea (as opposed to very fine and picky details) IS proven.

Bottom line -- the vast majority of supposedly "scientific" "proofs" of Creationism are either completely off -base (as in saying that natural selection could not account for evolution ... well true, but not what Evolution says currently), plain false (as in claims that the flood explains "mixing" of fossils ... not even biblical, by-the-way, because Noah was instructed to take 2 of ALL animals, not all but the dinosaurs) or claims that Carbon 14 dating is "inaccurate" (it is definitely not exact, but is accurate within limits -- just as a yardstick is not as accurate as a micrometer, yardstick measures are less accurate, but not "false" and quite useable in the correct context ... we talk of the 25 yard line, not the however many million micrometer line). ETC.

If you want to go to the Creationist Thread and address specifics, we can go for it ... again. Or, even start your own thread.

[muy_thaiguy]

Hubble can see galaxies whose light has taken millions of years to reach us.
Discuss.

The speed of light is a conspiracy.

So is the internet.

[tzor]

Hubble can see galaxies whose light has taken millions of years to reach us.
Discuss.

There was a young lady so bright
She could travel much faster than light.
She left us, they say, in a relative way,
And came back on the previous night!

But in one sense we can't tell how long that the light travelled. A photon is not like a tree where you can count all the rings to see how old it is. Indeed to the point of view of the photon the universe is actually a point.

I look forward to this discussion but before I do I just want to point out a little fact, God can neither deceive nor be deceived.

[PLAYER57832]

I look forward to this discussion but before I do I just want to point out a little fact, God can neither deceive nor be deceived

Yes, but people are FULLY capable of misunderstanding even the plainest of facts.

Hubble can see galaxies whose light has taken millions of years to reach us.
Discuss.

There was a young lady so bright
She could travel much faster than light.
She left us, they say, in a relative way,
And came back on the previous night!

But in one sense we can't tell how long that the light travelled. A photon is not like a tree where you can count all the rings to see how old it is. Indeed to the point of view of the photon the universe is actually a point.

It is neither point nor wave ... but that is old science.

[tzor]

It is neither point nor wave ... but that is old science.

I wasn't talking about the photon itself. I was talking about space time dialation as one approaches the speed of light itself. When you reach c either space or time (your choice on how you want to dialate ... it's all relative) approaches and becomes 0. Twins paradox stretched ad nauseum.

Here is an interesting question: Why is the "Twins paradox" an paradox?

[PLAYER57832]

It is neither point nor wave ... but that is old science.

I wasn't talking about the photon itself. I was talking about space time dialation as one approaches the speed of light itself. When you reach c either space or time (your choice on how you want to dialate ... it's all relative) approaches and becomes 0. Twins paradox stretched ad nauseum.

Here is an interesting question: Why is the "Twins paradox" an paradox?

Okay, picky here, but its a paradox, not an paradox lol (feel free to reciprocate)

If you are talking about the "space time dilation" .. which by the way is pretty theoretical at this point ... then you are not talking of photons at all. Further, at that point you get beyond standard "reality" and nuetonian physics. Quantum stuff was just beginning when I was in ... well some grade or other ( specifics deleted to "protect" the applicable) so I am not able to fully discuss it. Sorry.

[jonesthecurl]

Tzor, I know what you mean, but check out that you've just assigned a "point of view" to a photon...

"So, Mr Photon, what's your point of view on the universe?"
"I didn't think it had started yet."

[Simon Viavant]

Yes! 4,000 years ago, two people ate a peice of fruit, and therefore, you are a sinful little bastard and will burn in hell for all eternity.