DescentBB

Sorry, Flip, I don't believe you're rightly dividing the scriptures. I'm pretty certain you're abusing Acts 1:7, because you have not explained why the written account in Genesis is not to be known (a contradiction), and you leave out the qualification "which God has put in His own power". It just doesn't make any sense that God would at once tell us and then we should apply another part of scripture in order to not know what we were told. That's just folly. Don't try to make some big thing/cult out of reading Genesis in a straightforward manner. I read Genesis and believed it. It has never overly concerned or amazed me that unGodly men have concluded otherwise. You should acknowledge that you accept their conclusions, whether in whole or in part, and realize that this particular point is not in harmony with the Bible.

I willingly admit that I don't understand all of the significance of what Jesus did with the bread and the wine, but he did say that in doing this we show forth his death until he comes. The Bible says in another place that Jesus Christ died ONCE for all, and in another place "it is finished", whereas the Catholics "sacrifice" the mass often. To me it's clear.

God did not put the dates and times in creation under his own power, he wrote them in Genesis (as a basis for the 7000-year week which is also not for us to know *poke* *poke*).

My namesake ...

Daniel 9 wrote:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

Damnit, Daniel, don't try to make things so literal!

To each His own, but I like I said before, I could delve deeply into the science and show you at the same time your 7000 year old earth is wrong, and how none of it contradicts scripture or vice-versa, but it would be a waste of time.

Awww... Cop-out. Well flip, I'm not going to press you for an answer now, but anytime you want to explain what happened to the rest of Acts 1:7, I'm all ears. It seems to me you're "dividing" scripture in view of the theories of our day, and getting off in left field.

Flip wrote:I could delve deeply into the science and show you at the same time your 7000 year old earth is wrong, and how none of it contradicts scripture or vice-versa, but it would be a waste of time.

I might find that to be rather insulting, had I given any reason for you to say it. Speaking critically, I consider myself to be pretty fair-minded. I would say when someone really considers arguing with me a waste of time, they might look to their argument. Sometimes I hold "facts" at arms length when they purport to defeat things I have been convinced of, but I try never to dismiss anything without a valid reason. That's how I work. If you think you're flip enough, let's have it with the science.

No cop-out. It does not follow, but aside from that, I've already answered in this thread. Why should I keep repeating the same things to satisfy a short-term memory?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Jeff wrote:There is no naturalistic assumption in science.

You really need to distinguish between science as an ideal and science as a practice or field, because there certainly are naturalistic assumptions in the field, even if they are arguably not inherent in the scientific method...

If the scientists accused of making naturalistic assumptions are therefore producing an inferior theory, then why don't their accusers simply produce the superior theory that results when those assumptions are removed?

I can believe in the existence of life on Earth within 7000 years. Events can develop much faster than many scientists previously thought . Already there is evidence . For the formation of such huge quantities of minerals from living organisms , such is enough time. Furthermore, if life existed on Earth for millions of years , we would have found several orders of magnitude more fossilized remains of living organisms. By the way , I wonder what global catastrophe on Earth could occur so quickly that plants and animals do not even have time to rot , turning into fossils . This is possible only for a few months at most. What could cause such a rapid cooling or flood? That is, it can happen at any time , or what?
But I also can not understand how the Bible got this figure . Perhaps the authors considered the duration of life for generations of the people mentioned in the Bible. Maybe it's a coincidence . Based on what sources of information at all the Bible was written ? Saving genealogy for several thousand years is hard!
Anyway , religion is harmful to humans. Many disadvantages . Religion hinders the development of mankind. We have seen this for centuries. Religion aggressive as any ideology . Ask any believer , why do you believe in God? He can not answer . But he will tear to pieces anyone who does not believe in his God. Ask any American, why do you hate Russia ? It is also not able to answer. This effect is based on the ideology of suggestibility believers.
By the way , I would not be surprised if the higher animals exposed to religion. Many animals do strange rituals. Dolphins simultaneously drawn to a man as God , to know him, but also entire communities are thrown on shore, perhaps in an act of suicide under the influence of religious indoctrination within their society (?).

Yeah, but there's no way for all that life to have sprung forth from the ground, go through all those extinctions and atmospheric changes and 98% of all living things be dead now. Not in 7000 short years. The Cambrian Layer exists.

Protohistory refers to the transition period between prehistory and history, after the advent of literacy in a society but before the writings of the first historians. Protohistory may also refer to the period during which a culture or civilization has not yet developed writing, but other cultures have noted its existence in their own writings.

More complete writing systems were preceded by proto-writing. Early examples are the Jiahu symbols (ca. 6600 BC), Vinča signs (ca. 5300 BC), early Indus script (ca. 3500 BC) and Nsibidi script (ca. before 500 AD). There is disagreement concerning exactly when prehistory becomes history, and when proto-writing became "true writing"[2] However, invention of the first writing systems is roughly contemporary with the beginning of the Bronze Age in the late Neolithic of the late 4th millennium BC. The Sumerian archaic cuneiform script and the Egyptian hieroglyphs are generally considered the earliest writing systems, both emerging out of their ancestral proto-literate symbol systems from 3400–3200 BC with earliest coherent texts from about 2600 BC.

How long do you think it would take from the time 2 individuals were formed from the dust, till you had separate cultures forming writing systems?

Jeff250 wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Jeff wrote:There is no naturalistic assumption in science.

You really need to distinguish between science as an ideal and science as a practice or field, because there certainly are naturalistic assumptions in the field, even if they are arguably not inherent in the scientific method...

If the scientists accused of making naturalistic assumptions are therefore producing an inferior theory, then why don't their accusers simply produce the superior theory that results when those assumptions are removed?

I'm afraid this goes right back to pretending people are unbiased, like Bill Nye did when he made a big deal about saying Science welcomed reproof. Anyone with even an inkling of history where science is concerned knows that this has never been the case. It might give you guys a warm, fuzzy feeling inside to think this about yourselves, but it's not true. It's just not the way people tick in reality. It's like when someone says that people are basically good, which is absolutely false. A much truer statement in my experience is that people like to be able to think of themselves as good. People like to be able to think of themselves as unbiased...

To deal with the question more directly, I would say it is happening. Maybe we should start another topic about it.

flip wrote:Yeah, but there's no way for all that life to have sprung forth from the ground, go through all those extinctions and atmospheric changes and 98% of all living things be dead now. Not in 7000 short years. The Cambrian Layer exists.

I'm confident that more than 7000 years. But not so much as one might think now. Any modern method of determining the age of the remains, including a radioisotope method has huge error.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'm afraid this goes right back to pretending people are unbiased, like Bill Nye did when he made a big deal about saying Science welcomed reproof. Anyone with even an inkling of history where science is concerned knows that this has never been the case. It might give you guys a warm, fuzzy feeling inside to think this about yourselves, but it's not true. It's just not the way people tick in reality. It's like when someone says that people are basically good, which is absolutely false. A much truer statement in my experience is that people like to be able to think of themselves as good. People like to be able to think of themselves as unbiased...

To deal with the question more directly, I would say it is happening. Maybe we should start another topic about it.

It is happening, but there isn't a better theory yet? Or there is one that you can tell me?

You're right that people tend to not welcome reproof. And scientists, although possibly better about it than others, are no exception. But are you also willing to consider that a contributing factor as to why young earth creationists still believe that the earth is 7,000 years old is to avoid accepting reproof?

Still, in order to sell me the idea that scientists are biased toward a naturalistic theory, you have to show me that there is a better one that they are not considering!

Since you profess Christianity Thorne, I'll throw what I've read into the mix.

"He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority."

"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

"Now, dear friends, do not let this one thing escape your notice, that a single day is like a thousand years with the Lord and a thousand years are like a single day "

"Because a thousand years in your eyes is like a day that is finished when it is passed and like a watch of the night."

I can keep dividing

EDIT: There's another thread in PTMC that basically says the same thing

See, here is another problem with all of this…

If this was to be a "science" debate, then it is invalid to have a "science" debate between a scientist and a theologian.

And as far as the hypothesis goes…there is no way a non scientist can work out such a thing, and no scientist has the motivation.

I was trying to come up with something when it was first suggested, and everything I can come up with would be dismissed with the same words…”random chance can do that too”. (mind you, I wasn’t trying to develop a hypothesis on the white robed magic man type god, but something closer to an innate universal intelligence, not to be confused with ID either)

And no Jeff…nothing to do with the supernatural, or other dimensions.

See, I disagree with that Spidey. An altruistic lover of truth could do both, although granted there are not many of those. I myself am ready to accept anything that is truth, for I love it.

I’m not sure I understand the usage of “altruistic” in this context, but I do agree there are few and far between that can compete in both arenas.

I mean it in the strictest sense of the word. I love the truth, no matter what it is. That is why I have no fear of scientific findings, but I am also skeptical of a lot or most of the assumptions that people make. Not that I don't agree with doing so, how else are we gonna find out truth unless we investigate, but I also do not go beyond what is fact. I do however speculate but I never chalk it up as truth until that's what it becomes. That is an error both scientists and theologians make. The problem with that, is if they are ever confronted with evidence that might be contrary to their boasting, they will dismiss it out of pride and arrogance. Not me, I just want to know the truth about everything. I guess it helps if all your conditioning is your own.

Jeff250 wrote:It is happening, but there isn't a better theory yet? Or there is one that you can tell me?

I guess "better" must depend of what you're willing to allow for. For instance, proponents of naturalistic arguments are willing to allow for a LOT of time passage, which is pretty incredible when you compare it to how long it has even been a thought. The world has seen a few hundred years in the time it took them to cultivate the notion that it has been around for billions of years. An interesting thing to consider, I think. I mean is there anything that humanity has experienced that takes so long? How long does erosion take? How about trait changes in species or humans that we know about? Not very long, really. The only things that take so long are the very things we've never seen.

Anyway, enough pondering. I would propose what is commonly called Noah's flood. Of course that's an account, but there are theories based on that with applications ranging from origin of geological and fossil layers to significant atmospheric changes.

Jeff250 wrote:You're right that people tend to not welcome reproof. And scientists, although possibly better about it than others, are no exception.

I grant you that anyone involved in science certainly ought to know better. At the same time I would contend that someone who's life's work is so bound up in so little would actually be more susceptible to bias.

Jeff250 wrote:But are you also willing to consider that a contributing factor as to why young earth creationists still believe that the earth is 7,000 years old is to avoid accepting reproof?

That is such an odd statement, I'm really not sure how to answer. This seems to be along the same vein as Krom's associating young earth with flat earth.

flip wrote:Since you profess Christianity Thorne, I'll throw what I've read into the mix.

"He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority."

"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

"Now, dear friends, do not let this one thing escape your notice, that a single day is like a thousand years with the Lord and a thousand years are like a single day "

"Because a thousand years in your eyes is like a day that is finished when it is passed and like a watch of the night."

I can keep dividing

EDIT: There's another thread in PTMC that basically says the same thing

I think you're a good guy, Flip, but you're all wet. Instead of going 'round again let me ask a question.

Acts 1 wrote:6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.

What examples do we have in the scriptures of God putting times or seasons in his own authority?

Spidey wrote:See, here is another problem with all of this…

If this was to be a "science" debate, then it is invalid to have a "science" debate between a scientist and a theologian.

And as far as the hypothesis goes…there is no way a non scientist can work out such a thing, and no scientist has the motivation.

I was trying to come up with something when it was first suggested, and everything I can come up with would be dismissed with the same words…”random chance can do that too”. (mind you, I wasn’t trying to develop a hypothesis on the white robed magic man type god, but something closer to an innate universal intelligence, not to be confused with ID either)

And no Jeff…nothing to do with the supernatural, or other dimensions.

And that's kind of the crux of it: there's no real way you can come up with an experiment to test the supernatural, because by definition it's "beyond the nature" that we're able to observe and experience. We can (and have) run studies that show that spirituality corresponds to better mental health in general, but there's no real way of showing that said people's spiritual beliefs are a direct cause, and certainly not that there's anything to said beliefs either way in the first place. Short of God going all Old Testament and appearing in the form of a pillar of fire in our midst, there's nothing we can set up to point at and say, "Here's proof that God exists!" And since it's not something that can be tested, it's outside of the realm of science to make that determination. (As you can probably guess from that line of thought, I'm not exactly a fan of Richard Dawkins.)

Heh, I guess I'd rather be wet than thick I'm not sure what to do with that question Thorne. All I can say is it's obvious to me, to each his own. Although I will say, you can usually tell by the spirit of someone' words where they really stand. Do you want me to say that the Earth and all Creation was made in 7 literal days? I cannot, because of a preponderance of scripture and just plain observation. Could it have been? Sure, but when the person responsible says over and over they are not gonna be forthright concerning it, I don't set it in stone. That gives me room to correct for error.

What I want from you, rather, Flip, is an acknowledgement that there is no scriptural basis for refusing to understand the days in Genesis as written. Or I want a real scriptural basis. I take offense at the insinuation that I wish to force a belief on you. I'm just trying to show you that there really is no basis for your application of various verses to the account in Genesis (I may be open to argument, but a claim is not an argument)--which application only serves to undermine the account of Genesis for whatever reasons you have. The fact that you feel they apply does little to convey understanding of why they should apply. A person can't just do whatever they want with the scriptures. You say to each his own, but the truth is the account in Genesis either tells us that God created the earth in 6 days and rested the 7th, or it doesn't.

Exodus 20 wrote:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Thorne, I'd rather not argue this at all. It's completely unproductive. You believe in 7 literal days, fine, I don't although it could be.

Top Gun wrote:

Spidey wrote:See, here is another problem with all of this…

If this was to be a "science" debate, then it is invalid to have a "science" debate between a scientist and a theologian.

And as far as the hypothesis goes…there is no way a non scientist can work out such a thing, and no scientist has the motivation.

I was trying to come up with something when it was first suggested, and everything I can come up with would be dismissed with the same words…”random chance can do that too”. (mind you, I wasn’t trying to develop a hypothesis on the white robed magic man type god, but something closer to an innate universal intelligence, not to be confused with ID either)

And no Jeff…nothing to do with the supernatural, or other dimensions.

And that's kind of the crux of it: there's no real way you can come up with an experiment to test the supernatural, because by definition it's "beyond the nature" that we're able to observe and experience. We can (and have) run studies that show that spirituality corresponds to better mental health in general, but there's no real way of showing that said people's spiritual beliefs are a direct cause, and certainly not that there's anything to said beliefs either way in the first place. Short of God going all Old Testament and appearing in the form of a pillar of fire in our midst, there's nothing we can set up to point at and say, "Here's proof that God exists!" And since it's not something that can be tested, it's outside of the realm of science to make that determination. (As you can probably guess from that line of thought, I'm not exactly a fan of Richard Dawkins.)

I agree... which is why I harp on the argument the study of origins are a "scientific" pursuit is a farce. Simply put, God (and all supernatural beings) have a mind of their own and are incredibly smart - so they don't follow rules in the ways that we expect, and really only follow our predictions when it serves their purposes. (I suppose I'm sounding a lot like Greek mythology just about now...) Slick makes de-facto statements about the age of the earth.... but reality is that all you have is evidence that makes it look like the earth is much older than young earth creationists say... for all we know, we're actually all wired up to some giant VR a-la-matrix and the earth is just minutes old.... If God exists in the way that the Bible says, then He made the earth however He wanted to make it and there's absolutely nothing you can do to prove that is wasn't Him... because He has no more obligation to make things appear the way they really are than a faux finisher has an obligation to make new construction look like it was just made.

Being practical on the science side: The scientific process dictates that things must work in a predictable, organized fashion... and it's been demonstrated over and over again that this assumption is generally true. So, I don't expect science to somehow try to include religion or the possibility for the supernatural... because doing so would be completely fruitless... What is want is for people to admit that science simply doesn't (and can't) study the supernatural... and therefore admit that science is an inappropriate tool to try to use to make statements or conclusions about the supernatural. Furthermore, science can tell us a lot about mechanics, and can do a lot to empower us to live more comfortable, productive lives... but it can't directly answer our most basic philosophical questions - such as "what should I value" "why do we exist" "what's important in life" "how should I treat others around me." Science and reason can give us tools with which to evaluate possible answers to those questions - but it's a fallacy to think that science contains the answers to our philosophical questions. Origins come into play because our understanding of where we come from has an deeply rooted impact on the way that we answer those philosophical questions.... and I fail to see how origins are so central to our scientific pursuits that they need to be taught as part of any science curriculum. So.... my conclusion is teach evolutionary processes in science class and leave the question of human origins to the philosophers and philosophy class.

Well gee whiz, Flip, now I have to figure out something else to do with my night.

Lol, yes my friend, I am sure we could find 2 much more important people to talk about

Snoopy: my 'de-facto' statements include the key fact that says unless all calculations for decay of radioactive carbon are off by a factor of around 10,000 or more, the age of the Earth is FAR more than 8000 years old. Game over. Case closed.

callmeslick wrote:Snoopy: my 'de-facto' statements include the key fact that says unless all calculations for decay of radioactive carbon are off by a factor of around 10,000 or more, the age of the Earth is FAR more than 8000 years old. Game over. Case closed.

Case closed... except that you can't rule out creation with the appearance of age.

I don't think carbon dating is the best argument for an old universe... I think sighting constellations that are millions of light years away is a tougher egg to crack....

Either way... young earth creationism requires creation with the appearance of age... which can't be scientifically dis proven... so don't try.

Well, there's many other ways to determine age beside radio-active dating. Or even written history or the fossil record. Do you believe in glaciers? Do you believe the Great Lakes were caused by one? I do. To me, to even argue about an 8-10000 year old Earth the epitome of indoctrination. There are so many observable things that fly right into the face of that notion. I guess Dinosaurs lived for one day?! Besides that, exactly Snoopy. Our God is very clever about how he weeds out the true believers from those who follow tradition.

snoopy wrote:for all we know, we're actually all wired up to some giant VR a-la-matrix and the earth is just minutes old.... If God exists in the way that the Bible says, then He made the earth however He wanted to make it and there's absolutely nothing you can do to prove that is wasn't Him... because He has no more obligation to make things appear the way they really are than a faux finisher has an obligation to make new construction look like it was just made.

As for we're brains in vats, the universe was created as it is 10 seconds ago, etc... I've tried to be careful about this by saying that a scientific theory is good if it has good predictive power. The theory of evolution's predictive power is unchanged even if we're brains in vats, the universe was created as it is 10 seconds ago, etc. A scientific theory is "true" (if you want to use that word) insofar as it makes good predictions, but for metaphysical "truth," you do need to look elsewhere.

snoopy wrote:Being practical on the science side: The scientific process dictates that things must work in a predictable, organized fashion... and it's been demonstrated over and over again that this assumption is generally true. So, I don't expect science to somehow try to include religion or the possibility for the supernatural... because doing so would be completely fruitless... What is want is for people to admit that science simply doesn't (and can't) study the supernatural... and therefore admit that science is an inappropriate tool to try to use to make statements or conclusions about the supernatural.

This isn't a supernatural thing. This is a "my beliefs are sketchy" thing. Ufologists have this problem too, and their claims are completely natural. The aliens abduct me, but just not according to any kind of predictable schedule, and certainly never when there are cameras in the room. That's essentially how your God works too. And it has nothing to do with him being supernatural. It just has to do with your beliefs about him being suspiciously unverifiable.

snoopy wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Snoopy: my 'de-facto' statements include the key fact that says unless all calculations for decay of radioactive carbon are off by a factor of around 10,000 or more, the age of the Earth is FAR more than 8000 years old. Game over. Case closed.

Case closed... except that you can't rule out creation with the appearance of age.

I don't think carbon dating is the best argument for an old universe... I think sighting constellations that are millions of light years away is a tougher egg to crack....

Either way... young earth creationism requires creation with the appearance of age... which can't be scientifically dis proven... so don't try.

huh? Young earth creationism requires belief in stuff that clearly did not happen in the timeframe suggested. Period. Once again, note I'm only addressing the idea of the age of the Earth, I didn't veer off into age of universe. Of course, the concept of a universe or multiple universes, even, with multiple likelihoods of some formation of lifeforms, falls into another whole discussion.

callmeslick wrote:huh? Young earth creationism requires belief in stuff that clearly did not happen in the timeframe suggested. Period. Once again, note I'm only addressing the idea of the age of the Earth, I didn't veer off into age of universe. Of course, the concept of a universe or multiple universes, even, with multiple likelihoods of some formation of lifeforms, falls into another whole discussion.

Try reading my post again. Age of the universe, age of the earth... same thing..... point is that young earth creationism answers your arguments that [stuff - the earth, the universe, etc] is obviously older than 8000 years by saying that God could have created everything to have the appearance of being much older than 8000 years. Unless you were around more than 8,000 years ago and can personally vouch for the earth being older than 8000 years, you can't disprove the concept.

In terms of bring in the universe... I'm saying that it's scientifically easier to bring carbon dating into question than it is to bring light transit time into question... so if I were arguing for an old earth I'd point to light transit time from very distant bodies before I'd point to carbon dating & geological records. In other words: I see Einstein's concepts of relativity as a stronger piece of evidence than geological studies... or it's easier to justify a claim of falsified geological evidence than it is to claim that the whole universe is within 8,000 light years of earth. Either way, the earth, universe, and whatever stuff certainly has the appearance of being very old... so either it's very old or it was very carefully made to look like it's very old.

snoopy wrote: Age of the universe, age of the earth... same thing....

not really.

point is that young earth creationism answers your arguments that [stuff - the earth, the universe, etc] is obviously older than 8000 years by saying that God could have created everything to have the appearance of being much older than 8000 years. Unless you were around more than 8,000 years ago and can personally vouch for the earth being older than 8000 years, you can't disprove the concept.

in fiction writing, they call this willing suspension of disbelief. In real-world science, they call such claims BS.

Jeff250 wrote:This isn't a supernatural thing. This is a "my beliefs are sketchy" thing. Ufologists have this problem too, and their claims are completely natural. The aliens abduct me, but just not according to any kind of predictable schedule, and certainly never when there are cameras in the room. That's essentially how your God works too. And it has nothing to do with him being supernatural. It just has to do with your beliefs about him being suspiciously unverifiable.

...Or maybe it's a "beyond our technology, ability to measure." thing. The UFologists could be completely right... maybe their aliens have good cloaking and the ability to observe us without us noticing, so they choose to abduct us when the cameras are off and others aren't watching. If you introduce the possibility for sentience, then there's always the possibility that the thing we're trying to observe/test doesn't want to be observed and is far enough ahead of us technologically to be able to act upon that desire. If you allow for things to behave either outside of the cause/effect model, or in such a complex cause/effect scheme that we can't grasp it, then "suspiciously unverifiable" starts to just remind us of the way that people work.... in surprising ways.

Guess we're going for another conversation shift, then.

snoopy wrote:I agree... which is why I harp on the argument the study of origins are a "scientific" pursuit is a farce. Simply put, God (and all supernatural beings) have a mind of their own and are incredibly smart - so they don't follow rules in the ways that we expect, and really only follow our predictions when it serves their purposes. (I suppose I'm sounding a lot like Greek mythology just about now...) Slick makes de-facto statements about the age of the earth.... but reality is that all you have is evidence that makes it look like the earth is much older than young earth creationists say... for all we know, we're actually all wired up to some giant VR a-la-matrix and the earth is just minutes old.... If God exists in the way that the Bible says, then He made the earth however He wanted to make it and there's absolutely nothing you can do to prove that is wasn't Him... because He has no more obligation to make things appear the way they really are than a faux finisher has an obligation to make new construction look like it was just made.

This is kind of getting into some heavy navel-gazing territory here. Yes, it could be that we're all living in the Matrix as (completely-impractical) living batteries for our robotic master race, and that we're just seeing some illusory creation when we look around every day. Or maybe it's the case that God created the world a few thousand years ago, and arbitrarily decided to make everything look artificially old for some reason. (Shades of Hitchhiker's Guide maybe?) However, from a scientific standpoint, neither one of those possibilities deserves any real consideration in terms of affecting basic research. There's a principle called Occam's Razor that's used as a tool for scientific discovery: it's often explained somewhat incorrectly as "the simplest explanation is the right one," but more correctly it states that, among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be chosen. Both of those examples you cited would involve some pretty mind-bending assumptions from the get-go, so scientists go with the hypothesis that involves only one: the world that we observe is the real world, without any intentional deception.

(From a theological standpoint, I'd find the idea of God creating the entire world to look artificially old a pretty hard sell. I mean, you're basically talking about God trolling all of humanity...and for what reason? The Biblical God I'm familiar with doesn't seem like he'd be big into the whole lying-to-everyone concept. Also, on the Matrix concept, there are a few people who have come up with some pretty wild hypotheses about how we'd potentially be able to determine if we were living in an artificial simulated universe, but as you can imagine that's pretty fringe stuff.)

Being practical on the science side: The scientific process dictates that things must work in a predictable, organized fashion... and it's been demonstrated over and over again that this assumption is generally true. So, I don't expect science to somehow try to include religion or the possibility for the supernatural... because doing so would be completely fruitless... What is want is for people to admit that science simply doesn't (and can't) study the supernatural... and therefore admit that science is an inappropriate tool to try to use to make statements or conclusions about the supernatural. Furthermore, science can tell us a lot about mechanics, and can do a lot to empower us to live more comfortable, productive lives... but it can't directly answer our most basic philosophical questions - such as "what should I value" "why do we exist" "what's important in life" "how should I treat others around me." Science and reason can give us tools with which to evaluate possible answers to those questions - but it's a fallacy to think that science contains the answers to our philosophical questions. Origins come into play because our understanding of where we come from has an deeply rooted impact on the way that we answer those philosophical questions.... and I fail to see how origins are so central to our scientific pursuits that they need to be taught as part of any science curriculum. So.... my conclusion is teach evolutionary processes in science class and leave the question of human origins to the philosophers and philosophy class.

I'm sorry, but this seems like a very silly sentiment. I agree that the sorts of questions you posted there fall under the purview of philosophy or theology, and that you're not going to get an experimental result for what you should value most in life. But the idea of "origins" in terms of the biological processes that produced modern human beings, or the cosmological ones that led to the formation of the Earth, are most definitely important questions for scientific study, and should be taught by default in any comprehensive science curriculum. These concepts are a direct result of the same mechanics you cite as being worth teaching; the only way to separate the two is by introducing arbitrary artificial distinctions.

Top Gun wrote:But the idea of "origins" in terms of the biological processes that produced modern human beings, or the cosmological ones that led to the formation of the Earth, are most definitely important questions for scientific study, and should be taught by default in any comprehensive science curriculum.

Why?

snoopy wrote:

Top Gun wrote:But the idea of "origins" in terms of the biological processes that produced modern human beings, or the cosmological ones that led to the formation of the Earth, are most definitely important questions for scientific study, and should be taught by default in any comprehensive science curriculum.

Why?

you think those shouldn't be part of a science curriculum? Seriously?

callmeslick wrote:

snoopy wrote:

Top Gun wrote:But the idea of "origins" in terms of the biological processes that produced modern human beings, or the cosmological ones that led to the formation of the Earth, are most definitely important questions for scientific study, and should be taught by default in any comprehensive science curriculum.

Why?

you think those shouldn't be part of a science curriculum? Seriously?

I'm serious. Why are origins relevant to practical/useful science in the scale of human existence? I'm curious to see a good argument for it...

(Before you just fall back on empty assertions and ridicule... 100 years ago creationists would have had the same incredulous response about teaching creation origins in science class.)

snoopy wrote:I'm serious. Why are origins relevant to practical/useful science in the scale of human existence? I'm curious to see a good argument for it...

because studying such things, and such study has to be a scientific one, yields huge benefits to mankind. Much of what we are just beginning to understand about human genetics has(in part) come from curiousity about our origins. Likewise, much of what we are learning about out universe pays technological dividends in day to day life.

(Before you just fall back on empty assertions and ridicule... 100 years ago creationists would have had the same incredulous response about teaching creation origins in science class.)

note above response. No ridicule, no empty assertions. In fact, I find it puzzling that you would anticipate either. I've tried to stick pretty closely to science and why it matters throughout this entire thread.

What I've got crept doubt that we ever will be able to understand or even see about the Creator. How the sperm , or cell, which has great potential , can not understand that it is part of a huge body , and moreover, he is able to create this organism in favorable conditions. Perhaps humanity is a part of a huge body , which we call the universe . Least because too suspicious ideally located this organism . While I admit that this idea is more like the abstract . Just thinking ... Or, for example, galaxies - is many organisms which are different from each other, but the same basically. That we see, but we can not understand it, but we know that the Earth is part of one of the galaxies. And the honeycomb structure of the universe is also suggestive that this is all not accidentally appeared and working.
Although again it turns out that humanity in this case more like a harmful virus that slowly destroys one of the organs of the body in which he lives

callmeslick wrote:Because studying such things, and such study has to be a scientific one, yields huge benefits to mankind. Much of what we are just beginning to understand about human genetics has(in part) come from curiousity about our origins. Likewise, much of what we are learning about out universe pays technological dividends in day to day life.

Be more specific...

Okay, genetics helps us with medicine, etc... and you threw in the "in part" - so I could say curiosity about genetics has led to our genetic breakthroughs.... or I could say that creationists trying to prove their point about origins could have led to the genetic breakthroughs - either way it's the curiosity and investigation that spawned the breakthroughs, not the answers gleaned about origins. Maybe questions about origins motivated the scientists to do the work... but that isn't tied to a given model of origins... that's tied to people trying to use science to prove their (philosophical) point. I see the same thing when conservationists dwell on evolutionary origins to prove their point that we should do things more sustain-ably... I think to myself "funny, my creation origins beliefs lead me to the same conclusion that I should do things more sustain-ably."

I'm looking for an example of something that directly requires the study of evolutionary origins to be useful... not the study of evolutionary mechanics (such as the adaptation of species to environments) or evolutionary origins as a form of scientific motivation when other motivators could just as easily be substituted in.