Do you believe in God?

[truthguild]

I'd love to debate that too, as I believe the universe is no older than 10,000 years.

short version of how we know that's wrong - Big Universe+Constant Speed of Light=Old Universe (we can see things at 13.7 billion light years away). The only way to get around this problem is to deny gravity.
We know we're right about the size of the solar system, we've sent probes across it already. if we're that wrong about the size of the universe, then the gravitational attractions of all that matter being that much closer than we think it is would literally tear the solar system apart within a few months.

And what do you mean about "rocks look old?" Of course some people use carbon dating to try and determine the age of rocks,

no. carbon dating is used on organic materials less than 75,000 years or so old. one of the requirements to carbon dating a sample is the sample must contain carbon - unlike most rocks. rocks are dated by using multiple other radiometric dating methods that all cross-confirm each other although they work independantly.

but carbon dating relies on two big assumptions, namely: 1) That carbon is currently "disintegrating" at the same rate today as it always has,

and every bit of relevant evidence suggests it does - including blind testing carbon dating of samples of known age.

and 2) That these certain types of rocks contained the same amount of carbon at their formation as the same type of modern day rock contains at its formation.

as i already stated, carbon-dating is used for organic material - not rocks.

I think these two assumptions are no smaller than just assuming that there is a sovereign God.

um, no. the 'assumptions' used in science are tested and verifiable - your sovereign god is not.
Edit:

Hmmm, I see you aren't like truthguild who will at least attempt to answer objections. Too bad he seems to have left these forums. Did I scare him off?

how sweet of you to miss me - but no, you haven't scared me off, nor will you ever. however, now that i see you're back, we are still waiting for you to provide that article from a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal, dated after 1970, that uses "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" in other than a historical reference - since you did claim that science does still differentiate.

But anyways, you can't give me clear evidence that the earth evolved from nothing,

nor do scientists claim it did - it's creationists who think it came from nothing. scientists believe that the earth - and all the other planets in our solar system - is the result of gravitational attractions within the sun's (from when it was a proto-star) accretion disk.

so why should I give you clear evidence that God exists.

because it's your claim. positive claims require positive evidence, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. the claim of a supreme creator god is a rather extraordinary claim, as it would also be needed to be explained how it came to be.

But here's my citation for the list I just gave you.
http://creation.com/creation-scientists
Go back to any post in this thread and find something I said there, and I'll be happy to provide you citation for that!

and you'll note that most of the scientists on that list are from a period of time when no one had an alternatve explanation - and there uses of god never increased anyone's understanding of anything as well as often holding them back as well.

[merrillmck]

Fun thread.

Ironically, you could argue the Bible is a collection of papers that is peer-reviewed by experts in the Christian religion.

You don't have chemists reviewing software security papers and vice versa.

Peer review allows plenty of trash to get published although that stuff usually doesn't stand the test of time.

Sincerely,
Devil's Advocate

[truthguild]

Fun thread.

Ironically, you could argue the Bible is a collection of papers that is peer-reviewed by experts in the Christian religion.

You don't have chemists reviewing software security papers and vice versa.

Peer review allows plenty of trash to get published although that stuff usually doesn't stand the test of time.

Sincerely,
Devil's Advocate

except that in serious peer-review, the objective is to reject the paper. it begins with the asumption that it's wrong and has to show itself to be correct via empirical evidence, whereas with the bible, the opposite happens - it's assumed true and no evidence is required to back it up.

[merrillmck]

except that in serious peer-review, the objective is to reject the paper. it begins with the asumption that it's wrong and has to show itself to be correct via empirical evidence, whereas with the bible, the opposite happens - it's assumed true and no evidence is required to back it up.

Correct. There are good journals and good conferences that reject 80% or more of papers submitted.

But these same journals and conferences don't actually travel to your lab and witness you collect your data and perform your experiments. In reality, people publish in top conferences and journals with false data and erroneous conclusions. Trash gets published. They are the minority but they're still published.

So serious peer-review still isn't going to mean something is true.

[zen-r]

There really is no point in providing all this scientific evidence.

If it doesn't coincide with their simplistic view of the view of the world, as set out by their faith, they will just ignore or deny it.

This thread is about the existence of a god. So come on, let's have some evidence from you religious types, backed up with something other than what's written in some book of fiction.

The onus must be on you now to back up your own claims. You've had quite enough of our evidence.

Come on, Still waiting..........

[merrillmck]

There really is no point in providing all this scientific evidence.

If it doesn't coincide with their simplistic view of the view of the world, as set out by their faith, they will just ignore or deny it.

This thread is about the existence of a god. So come on, let's have some evidence from you religious types, backed up with something other than what's written in some book of fiction.

The onus must be on you now to back up your own claims. You've had quite enough of our evidence.

Come on, Still waiting..........

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all saw similar events (ie miracles) that have no scientific explanation.

Sincerely,
Devil's Advocate

[truthguild]

Correct. There are good journals and good conferences that reject 80% or more of papers submitted.

But these same journals and conferences don't actually travel to your lab and witness you collect your data and perform your experiments. In reality, people publish in top conferences and journals with false data and erroneous conclusions. Trash gets published. They are the minority but they're still published.

So serious peer-review still isn't going to mean something is true.

of course they aren't going to travel to the author of the paper's lab - they'll use the details provided in his paper to duplicate the experiment, after all, objective evidence doesn't rely on the observer for its truth.
and yes, some junk does make it through and get published - and later it gets discovered to be wrong and corrected - that's one of the beauties of science, it's an elaborate, self-correcting system.

[Clinton]

No need to submit evidence based on my beliefs. They're a personal thing that I choose for myself.

My belief run a little deeper than what most people think they know about "religion".

So in short, I sure do believe in a higher power.

[truthguild]

No need to submit evidence based on my beliefs. They're a personal thing that I choose for myself.

My belief run a little deeper than what most people think they know about "religion".

So in short, I sure do believe in a higher power.

we aren't asking for evidence based on your beliefs, we're asking for evidence your beliefs are based on.

[zen-r]

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all saw similar events (ie miracles) that have no scientific explanation....

This isn't evidence, this is a story. Provide the evidence of a god please.
Can you tell me & explain what is on my table right now? No? So, because you have no explanation, this proves there is a god? Ridiculous! Come on, I know you can do better than that!

I'd rather see these different religions here argue it out amongst themselves - no need for science to step in any more & defend itself. We've done plenty enough of that already.

If your religion is based on anything other than made up stories, post your proof here. Then try to explain to the other religion why your evidence is right, & theirs is wrong. You can't all be right now, can you?! And don't try to avoid this by arguing that ultimately you all believe in the same god, because you don't. Many religions have multiple, one, or no gods. And what "facts" you base your god's existence on, & what you believe you must do as part of your religion, differ wildly.

That's what this thread is for, to discuss & explain the basis of your views. It's OK to state your difference of opinion.

So come on, get started, or are you afraid that the foundation of your belief system is too weak to stand up to any scrutiny?


Still waiting.......