Will you oppose to scientific conclusions if they'll lead to theology?

Believing there is no God is a belief.
It is only with that axiom that you can convince yourself you are making sense.
Science has decided to accept the religion of atheism. The belief that there is no God is a religion.
All of the available evidence is the same for both sides. Without the pre-supposition that God does not exist and the world is billions of years old the data from radiometric testing would be interpreted in a completely different way.
This is just as prejudiced as allowing Creationist to decide the interpretation for everybody else.
What is illogical about this is thinking ones belief system can be separated from the way data is interpreted. No one is neutral.
Because some data demands an interpretation it would make much more sense to stop trying to impose a belief system on any scientist and let them do experiments based on their belief system.
The present situation that only allows the belief their is no Creator almost cost the world the benefit of the M.R.I. The struggle to get funding was uphill because the evolutionist scientist were convinced that its use would entail turning people at 10k rpm.
Why limit the benefits of technology to one belief system?As far as scientific conclusions there are some things that will never have a naturalistic answer.
Logic tells you that mass, time and space had to come into existence simultaneously. That is where the word Universe came from.
One verse -Let there be.
If you don't like that answer so be it. To insist that no answer is better is absurd.
If you want to believe that nothing created itself that is a religion. I
t will not stop you from preforming scientific experiments either way.
By maintaining the present system of religious persecution you are denying the public all of the science it is paying for.

I appreciate your detailed response.That's just kicking out belief systems through the front door and letting them in again through the back entrance. On top of that, I suspect that the belief system you want to kick out is the supposed 'religion' of atheism, and the one you'd like to see allowed back in is your own religion.No ones belief system should be "kicked out" you are agreeing with religious persecution .To me this sounds a lot like you."We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill may of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods of institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, the materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Richard Lewontin, geneticistYou said:
If I may do some turning around of my own: with the presupposition that God does exist and that the world is not billions of years old, the data is completely baffling.The does not make the data baffling to everyone-just to evolutionist. It is possible your axiom is wrong is it not? Thats why evolutionist make up dates as in this example-Page not found - WND
Lying is not scientific. Glueing bones together is not scientific-it is however necessary to force the data to fit the evolutionary hypothesis.To quote Dawkins I find personally insulting."It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true.I have the right and the reason to assume these are your thoughts as well.
Intelligence and logic are not necessarily synonymous. Your logic in quoting this man I fing wanting..

Dear Sir :It is obvious you have no clue what radiometric "dating" is capable of. There is no magic box that pops up a date when an object is inserted. All it tells us is the level of certain isotopes.
What this tells us is pure speculation. Unless you have a time machine you have to assume that you know the original level of the isotope and if the sample was affected by any outside influence.
Radio Carbon has some testable calibration but is often wildly inaccurate.
Sedimentary rock is not subject to this type of testing. Lyell made up dates for geologic layers before anyone dreamed of radiometric testing. Out of thin air!
It is circular reasoning-the fossils date the rocks -the rocks date the fossils.
Creation scientist as well as many honest evolutionist scientist have found thousands of cases that radiometric dating -if you assume it is valid-disproves the billions of years theory.
For instance lava flows at Mt. St. Helens that occurred in 1980 have tested at 300k years old. This has happened with lava flows all over the world. If any testing disagrees w/ accepted dating, which is the vast majority of them, they a must be contaminated.
Unless the rocks were kept in a lead shield they are all contaminated.
The technology is next to worthless. It is a huge waste of money.
Without the billions of years the evolution hypothesis flies out the window.
Naturalism is the belief there are no miracles from God and there is a naturalistic explanation for everything. Since that cannot be scientifically proven it must be taken on faith. That defines it as a religion.
As far as being surprised about the M.R.I. technology that is only because you have been taught to believe evolution is responsible for all scientific knowledge. That is not even remotely true. Pasteur, the Wright Brothers, Von Braun, Teller, Newton-I could fill the page -were all Creationist. There are thousands of Creationist in science and medicine today but you rarely hear of them , they are systematically ignored.
Why don't you know the story of the M.R.I. ? Is it not news worthy?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i3/science.asp
You should learn the history of naturalism/evolution. Learn about people line Emmanuel Swedenborg and read Haeckel’s History of Creation.
Check out this site http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckel_illustrations.html It's in French but the illustration captions are in English. This will tell you the basis for your theory-it really hasn’t changed that much.

I appreciate your input.
It will take some time to go through the age of the earth thread to prepare an answer for you.
The first thing I noticed is the reference to flat earthers.
All the flat earther societies I find are them very humorous . If you know of one that is anything but tongue and cheek humor please let me know.
There is nothing in the bible that refers to a flat earth unless you fail to understand old english. Rev 7:1 refers to the four corners of the earth-it means quadrants in todays english. Meanings change-gay ment something much different not long ago.The weatherman talks about the sunrise-it is safe to assume he knows it dosen't do thatActually the Bible says just the opposite and it is hard to stay objective when such cheap insults are thrown out.
What is your opinion on flat earthers?Thanks

Darwin knew that Haeckel and others were fabricating data and he supported them. That makes him complicit.
Talk/origins is certainly political. They lie with authority -one example their page on flat earthers.
Maybe I am ignorant as you and Dawkins say:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true.As far as your comment on ICR and AIG I do want to go there. We can talk about Pigmies in cages and Aborigines behind murdered and skinned and all kinds of fun stuff.To this day evolutionists create and suppress data to support the hypothesis. You follow them like a sheep-what does that say about you?
No offense of course.This message has been edited by peddler, 02-27-2005 11:50 AM

Instead of calling Steve Austin a liar why not go out and collect new samples with him? Have both sides monitor the test procedures?
Your thoughts?

http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/001160.html
If you have decided I am a wacko it is of no use to argue.

Using abuses by other religions as an analogy to defend evolution proves my point that it is one.

Very little crap the Creationist put out sees the light of day. The recent problems with the Smithsonian show that clearly.
If you are right everything the Creationist know -about origins not science in general - is wrong.
If they are right the same applies to you.
If as I am told ad nauseaum that science cannot prove the existence of God it must also be true it can't prove the non-existence of Him either.
It would seem foolish not to encourage both sides and hope one of them is right. Otherwise all your eggs are in one basket.
Foolish is the status quo.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flatearth.html
The International Flat Earth Society is a joke. Evolution failed to bestow a sense of humor on it's followers-my observation.
The only possible place in the Bible one could possibly interpret a flat earth is rev 7 vs 1 -The four corners of the Earth. In old English and in Greek it's meaning is quadrants-a nautical term.
On the contrary the Bible says just the opposite. The Bible is not a science book but its references to scientific fact are thousands of years ahead of it's time.
The flat earth was invented by scientist -just like scientist pressured the church to shut down Galileo. It is not biblical.
To insinuate that any Christians believe to this day in a flat earth is propaganda. The disclaimer does not change that.
Do you believe in Haekel's speechless apes? or his cell?
I could claim that all meteorologists believe the sun revolves around the earth as well as every news organization in America.
We all know the sun doesn't rise but not those idiots!
I have more on them but that is enough.

I don't get my science from the popular press.
The question you should be asking is where does the popular press get their science.
With a religious fervor usually reserved for snake charmers the press defends your faith.
The question you should ask yourself is why? Why does the press -like National Geographic promote fraud? Increased circulation doesn't explain promoting a fraud that was revealed to them beforehand.
If evolution is a science why does it discriminate -name calling and suppression of opposing ideas shows an agenda.
Why do the textbook to this day deceive children with Haeckel's embryo drawings that were denounced as fakes over 100 years ago?
No self-respecting biologist approves of this-evolutionist or no-but there they sit.
Not only are they there but also groups like the N.C.S.E. mindlessly defend them with name calling etc. etc. They call themselves Nat. Center for Scientific Ed. but promote only evolution. If evolution can stand on it's feet why does it have to defend itself with intimidation? Why this total lack of integrity?
On one hand they promote ideas no self-respecting scientist would endorse and on the other ridicule creationist as insane people?
Something is very wrong here.
Why did Time magazine promote Haeckel's ideas in a fairly recent article? Like you said these were debunked by evolutionist long ago. Why do some evolutionist defend this? Think past your presuppositions and this should disturb you.
Over and over I see these childish tactics like saying people of faith are stupid because they believe the earth is flat etc.
There is nothing in the bible that indicates anything but the earth is round. It is not a scientific book but it knew many scientific facts such as what caused the wind 3500 years ago.
Some people believed the earth was flat in the past-it was not an idea from the Church or from the Hebrews-it was from science.
No one believes it now. Louis Pasteur proved life only springs from life more than 100 years ago yet many evolutionists still believe we descended from a rock. It is still in the textbooks.
I could ridicule meteorologist for believing the sun revolves around the earth and have a much better case. After all they claim to know what time the sun rises. Hell I knew better than that when I was three.
When these tactics are necessary to prove your point you need to look at yourself instead of attacking others.Fraud in evolution is not a rare occurrence. It is only rare that is gets any press.This message has been edited by peddler, 02-28-2005 10:06 AM

Believe what you like. No one believes it -the joke is to convince everyone they do. It is called tongue and cheek humor-some people just don’t get it.
It may be some there are cases of an atheist-pretending to be creationist- that claims to believe in it just to discredit creationist. But I think it is a big joke.
There is nothing Biblical about a flat earth and to use it to discredit creationist shows ones true character.
To say meteorologist believe the sun revolves around the earth would make more sense.
Check your paper-the sun doesn't rise-or does it?
Could N.A.S.A. have lied about the absence of green cheese on the moon?
We may never know.