Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
So you think the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is run by Christians? Not the liberal/agnostic/atheistic elite who run the rest of academia?
It's irrelevant, really. It can be objectively ascertained what is science and what is not. All you can ask is that they are rational people and faith doesn't come into it. Doesn't quite gel with your conspiracy theory though..Since the Bible is being challenged, we seek to show that science is not opposed to the Biblical account - that a recent creation is in line with the evidence.
But if you can just dismiss any evidence that appears to contradict the Bible, a la AiG, what is the real point? An omnipotent God can make anything just so, meaning any scientific challenges can be simply ignored. Just say that science is wrong and continue like nothing has happened. Effectively, that is what scientists who are creationists are already doing but why even attempt to appear otherwise? Is there a satisfactory explanation for this? (And I'm being genuine here, though I know I must be coming across as obnoxious).0 -
So you think the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is run by Christians?
Meanwhile, some months back, the Texas Educational Agency which looks after primary and secondary schools in the state, fired their Director of Science Curriculum, Chris Comer, for forwarding an email from the National Center for Science Education about an upcoming talk. More on that here.
Ben Stein unaccountably forgot to mention this in his recent, but fast-fading, agitprop piece.0 -
Anyway, to answer your question: the only reason creationists make a scientific case is to answer objections to the veracity of the Bible. If the current materialistic explanation of the cosmos (evolution being a central constituent) did not challenge the basis of the Christian faith, then we would not bother.
Evolution is really the least of your problems in that regard.Since the Bible is being challenged, we seek to show that science is not opposed to the Biblical account - that a recent creation is in line with the evidence.
But you can't scientifically show that even if it is true, because even if the universe was created recently it still looks like it wasn't, and science can only ever deal with how the universe appears to be, not how your holy book claims it really is.0 -
-
So you think the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is run by Christians? Not the liberal/agnostic/atheistic elite who run the rest of academia?
Such comments are a double-edged sword, wolfsbane.
You are either suggesting that the likes of Christian universities are not academic, or are run by liberal/agnostic/atheistic elite.If the current materialistic explanation of the cosmos (evolution being a central constituent) did not challenge the basis of the Christian faith, then we would not bother.
It doesn't challenge the basis of the Christian Faith. A misinterpretation of it challenges those "flavours" of Christian faith who argue in favour of literal inerrancy of the books of Genesis. Unsurprisingly, among those doing the misinterpretation are those who insist that this gives reason to challenge it.
One would have thought that stressing what science is and what science is not would be a far more successful strategy in that respect. Remove the misinterpretation, and the problem disappears.0 -
Advertisement
-
daithifleming wrote: »How does evolution explain the cosmos?
It doesn't. Its just yet another example of how the root problem of the Creationist issue with science is fundamentally due to their own misinterpretation of it.0 -
Originally Posted by J C
......all logic and observation supports my hypothesis that a supreme intelligence created life....
Wicknight
That statement is not scientific.
For a start what is a "supreme intelligence", how does one model that? And what did they actually do? Created life how, and when?
What is your model of your hypothesis, and how would you falsify it?
One way of falsifying Creation by a Supreme Intelligence would be to demonstrate that life could arise spontaneously via the normal Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Biology.
Equally, a spontaneous increase in functional information via the normal Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Biology would also falsify Creation by a Supreme Intelligence…..
…..so the Creation Hypothesis is a REAL scientific hypothesis……unlike Spontaneous Evolution which actually has no way of falsifying it....and therefore ISN'T actually a valid scientific theory at all!!!!:D
.....in fact, that is one of the reasons why Spontaneous Evolution has been such a resiliant and fascinating idea.....for Materialists!!!!:D
Bonkey
So, if I had scientific evidence which supported a (scientific) Creationist model, then that Creationist model cannot be based on claims that are non-falsifiable. This leaves you with two choices..either the model does not include God, or the God in the model is falsifiable. You explicitly referred to God, so that rules out the first option.
Get it yet? Either you have to allow the scientific model of God to be falsifiable, or you have to exclude God from the scientific model. As neither option is a comment on reality, neither option reduces God to scientific theory.
You are correct that God is beyond sensory perception and therefore beyond Science. A scientific hypothesis cannot be constructed for God that is falsifiable.
HOWEVER the objective of Creation Science is NOT to DIRECTLY prove the existence of God…..
......CS exists to indirectly prove the existence of God by observing the physical evidence for His ACTIVITY…..and as this activity is BOTH falsifiable, and observable via sensory perception, Creation Science is REAL Science.
The Spontaneous Evolutionist Model speculates about events over millions of years of unobservable time and it is NOT falsifiable…..and it is therefore unscientific!!!!:eek:
Bonkey
That is exactly the type of broken reasoning I said terrified me....a direct consequence of people not distinguishing between a scientific model and reality.
Tuché, Bonkey!!!:)
Bonkey
I think the problem arises because you want to believe that science can support the existence of God, and the correctness of the bible....but cannot accept that this simply isn't true.
The ACTIUAL problem is that Materiaists desperately want to believe that science can support the existence of Spontaneous Evolution (which is currently ‘the only game in town’ for Materialists), and they cannot accept that Spontaneous Evolution simply isn't true or indeed logical.
Theists have many possible hypotheses with varying degrees of scientific validity ranging from Theistic Evolution through ID to Direct Creation......so they should be more objective in their assessment of the available evidence!!!!:D
Wicknight
Creationism is not simply bad science, but it is ultimately not possible for it to be science in the first place because it is not possible to create a scientific model of what they claim happened.
Could I remind you that NEITHER Materialists nor Creationists have developed a model or observed the original generation of life……so BOTH the Spontaneous and Divine Generation of life hypotheses are strictly ‘outside’ of science currently.
Change or ‘Evolution’ within Kinds is observable and so this is an accepted part of science for BOTH Creationists and Evolutionists.
Wicknight
The most science could say is that, from scientific point of view, we don't know, and let religious people believe what they like.
The most science could say is that we don't know how life could be Spontaneously Generated........
........but faith-filled Evolutionists, could continue to believe almost anything!!!!.
Unfortunately, such naïve faith could be sorely tested by the fact that both ID and Creation Scientists HAVE indirectly proven the existence of God by observing the physical evidence for His ACTIVITY…..and as this activity is BOTH falsifiable and observable via sensory perception both ID and Creation Science are REAL Sciences.
The Spontaneous Evolutionist Model speculates about events over millions of years of unobservable time and is NOT falsifiable…..
......it is therefore unscientific……..
......but it does provide a basis of sorts for Materialists to continue to stick their collective heads in the ‘sands of denial’…….therby helping them to maintain their belief that there is no God!!!!:D:pac::)
Wicknight
One cannot say that science supports the idea of intelligent creation, because that is something that cannot model scientifically without modelling the creator
By claiming to use science Creationists are simply heading down a cul-de-sac
If you observe a simple nut and bolt, you DON’T need "to model a Creator" of this basic artefact to scientifically conclude that an object of such specified complexity didn’t arise spontaneously……but was produced by intelligent action……..
......and ditto ‘with bells on it’ when we observe the infinitely greater specified complexity of the Human Genome!!!!:eek::)
Eoin5
I'd put ID in the domain of pseudo-science. Its got good company though with string theory and chaos theory. These use science in their arguments but if only we ever did meet our maker or create something that could make us see or test a string then we would have to call them science. Chaos theory is obviously unfalsifiable and breaks the only assumption that science makes, that the universe follows a set of rules. These things are not scientific because they are inferior to science but because they are bigger than science so theres no reason to feel bad about it.
Under the definition of science proposed by the Evolutionists on this Thread, Spontaneous Evolution would also join the ranks of string theory and chaos theory as a ‘pseudo science’………
....while ID and Creation Science are within the category of 'proper science' ......because they deal with hypotheses that are supported by repeatably observable PHYSICAL phenomena!!!!:)0 -
One way of falsifying Creation by a Supreme Intelligence would be to demonstrate that life could arise spontaneously via the normal Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Biology.
Equally, a spontaneous increase in functional information via the normal Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Biology would also falsify Creation by a Supreme Intelligence…..
Neither of these would falsify creationism theory - they would only support the existence of a separate independent natural mechanism. As stated before creationism is non-falsifiable. :pac: Therefore by your own admission:has no way of falsifying it....and therefore ISN'T actually a valid scientific theory at all!!!!:D
Quite right!You are correct that God, if He exists, is beyond sensory perception and therefore beyond Science. A scientific hypothesis cannot be constructed for God that is falsifiable.
Can I gently remind you of this:has no way of falsifying it....and therefore ISN'T actually a valid scientific theory at all!!!!:D
And so ends the scientific non-debate portion of this thread with the ultimate concession by J C. Th-th-th-that's ALL folks! :pac:0 -
Originally Posted by J C
One way of falsifying Creation by a Supreme Intelligence would be to demonstrate that life could arise spontaneously via the normal Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Biology.
Equally, a spontaneous increase in functional information via the normal Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Biology would also falsify Creation by a Supreme Intelligence…..
2Scoops
Neither of these would falsify creationism theory - they would only support the existence of a separate independent natural mechanism. As stated before creationism is non-falsifiable. :pac:
They would certainly demonstrate the POSSIBILITY of a Materialistic origin for life.....and if either were observed to be continuing to occur, this would eliminate the need for Direct Creation......
......in any event, you haven't shown how Spontaneous Evolution could be falsified.....so that it can comply with YOUR definition of science????Originally Posted by J C
…..so the Creation Hypothesis is a REAL scientific hypothesis……unlike Spontaneous Evolution which actually has no way of falsifying it....and therefore ISN'T actually a valid scientific theory at all!!!!
2Scoops
Quite right!
Fair enough.......so you agree that the Creation Hypothesis is a REAL scientific hypothesis.......unlike Spontaneous Evolution which has no way of falsifying it....and is therefore an invalid scientific theory (under YOUR terms) !!!:DOriginally Posted by J C
You are correct that God is beyond sensory perception and therefore beyond Science. A scientific hypothesis cannot be constructed for God that is falsifiable.
2Scoops
Can I gently remind you of this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by J C
has no way of falsifying it....and therefore ISN'T actually a valid scientific theory at all!!!!
2Scoops
And so ends the scientific non-debate portion of this thread with the ultimate concession by J C. Th-th-th-that's ALL folks! :pac:
....and IF you had read the rest of what I had to say, this is what you would have found :-
HOWEVER the objective of Creation Science is NOT to DIRECTLY prove the existence of God…..
......CS exists to indirectly prove the existence of God by observing the physical evidence for His ACTIVITY…..and as this activity is BOTH falsifiable, and observable via sensory perception, Creation Science is REAL Science.
The Spontaneous Evolutionist Model speculates about events over millions of years of unobservable time and it is NOT falsifiable…..and it is therefore unscientific!!!!:eek::pac::):D
......and so Spontaneous Evolution, which is paraded by Materialists as "a scientific fact".......is neither scientific nor a fact.......while Creation Science provide a scientifically valid evaluation of the overwhelming physical evidence for Direct Divine Creation!!!!:D0 -
One way of falsifying Creation by a Supreme Intelligence would be to demonstrate that life could arise spontaneously via the normal Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Biology.
Equally, a spontaneous increase in functional information via the normal Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Biology would also falsify Creation by a Supreme Intelligence…..
They wouldn't in any way, at all, falsify a theory of creation by a supreme intelligence.
But thank you for at least clarifying that you don't understand what falsifiable means.
You are a scientist in what field again .... ? :rolleyes:Could I remind you that NEITHER Materialists nor Creationists have developed a model or observed the original generation of life……so BOTH the Spontaneous and Divine Generation of life hypotheses are strictly ‘outside’ of science currently.
They certainly are.
The problem you have though is that your "hypotheses" can never be modelled, tested or falsified, because you cannot model the cause you claim created life, and as such it can never be a scientific theory. The most science can ever say is that it is unknownUnfortunately, such naïve faith could be sorely tested by the fact that both ID and Creation Scientists HAVE indirectly proven the existence of God by observing the physical evidence for His ACTIVITY
But you cannot demonstrate that it was "His activity" because you cannot model that. You are just guessing based on religious text. It could have been anyones activity as far as any scientific model you would attempt to create around this.…..and as this activity is BOTH falsifiable and observable via sensory perception both ID and Creation Science are REAL Sciences.
It is not falsifiable (though in fairness you appear to not understand what that word means), you cannot demonstrated that your model of God is inaccurate because you cannot model God or what he did in the first place.If you observe a simple nut and bolt, you DON’T need "to model a Creator" of this basic artefact to scientifically conclude that an object of such specified complexity didn’t arise spontaneously
And that is the problem Creationism has in attempting to be proper science, you can't do that because you cannot model or form theories around any of what you believe (from your religion) actually took place.0 -
Advertisement
-
Our good friend Ben Stein gets an 'honorable' mention on page 50 of this month's New Scientist magazine (cuttlefish on the cover).0
-
They wouldn't in any way, at all, falsify a theory of creation by a supreme intelligence.
......in any event, you ALSO haven't shown how Spontaneous Evolution could be falsified.....so that it can comply with YOUR definition of science????Originally Posted by J C
Could I remind you that NEITHER Materialists nor Creationists have developed a model or observed the original generation of life……so BOTH the Spontaneous and Divine Generation of life hypotheses are strictly ‘outside’ of science currently.
Wicknight
They certainly are.
The problem you have though is that your "hypotheses" can never be modelled, tested or falsified, because you cannot model the cause you claim created life, and as such it can never be a scientific theory. The most science can ever say is that it is unknown
Science can do a lot more than express the opinion that the ultimate generator of life is 'unknown'........it is now in a position to validly conclude that life had a pro-genator of inordinate intelligence and power!!!!
It is interesting that Materialists are labelling the origins of life as 'unknown'......and indeed scientifically 'unknowable' .....
.......by doing so, they are behaving like Midieval mapmakers.......and marking their resistance to ID and Creation Science with hand waving that sounds remarkably like 'there be dragons there'!!!!!
I can assure you that there are no 'dragons' or anything else to fear from Creation Science or ID ..........just amazing cutting edge and breakthrough scientific knowledge........
........you have nothing to fear by becoming a Creationist or ID investigator except the loss of your unfounded and illogical belief that matter can spontaneously generate functional information!!!!!Wicknight wrote:But you cannot demonstrate that it was "His activity" because you cannot model that. You are just guessing based on religious text. It could have been anyones activity as far as any scientific model you would attempt to create around this.
.....whether this Intelligence was the God of the Bible is a matter of personal faith.......but a Spontaneous Materialistic origin for life can be scientifically ruled out........and Spontaneous Evolution along with it !!!!!:DWicknight wrote:It is not falsifiable (though in fairness you appear to not understand what that word means), you cannot demonstrated that your model of God is inaccurate because you cannot model God or what he did in the first place.Originally Posted by J C
If you observe a simple nut and bolt, you DON’T need "to model a Creator" of this basic artefact to scientifically conclude that an object of such specified complexity didn’t arise spontaneously
Wicknight
Yes actually, you do, if you want that conclusion to be considered scientific. You need to form a scientific model of how the object was created, a model that can be tested and falsified. Otherwise you are just guessing, you have no way to measure how correct or incorrect you may be.
Critically, however, we can definitively conclude that both a bolt and a genome can ONLY be created by the appliance of intelligence......because they both possess the unique 'hallmark' of intelligent design.......SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY!!!!:D
.....and I must give credit to my ID colleagues for this amazing breakthrough in our scientific understanding of the wonderful Created World within which we live!!!!:pac::):D0 -
......in any event, you ALSO haven't shown how Spontaneous Evolution could be falsified.....so that it can comply with YOUR definition of science????YOUR definition of sciencejust like we cannot scientifically assess the personality of the person who created a particular nut and bolt.....
Well, by 'we' I mean the scientific community, not you and I literally. I mean I know I'm not actually a scientist, but hey, at least I can admit that much.0 -
Critically, however, we can definitively conclude that both a bolt and a genome can ONLY be created by the appliance of intelligence......because they both possess the unique 'hallmark' of intelligent design.......SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY!!!!:D
.....and I must give credit to my ID colleagues for this amazing breakthrough in our scientific understanding of the wonderful Created World within which we live!!!!:pac::):D
Definitively? ONLY? Hallmark of Intelligent Design? Amazing breakthrough? By means of looking at two fairly unrelated and jumping to a conclusion? Are you certain you're a scientist?
Why do I keep asking questions? Surely I know I wont get any straight answers?
Who am I talking to? Why am I still here? :pac:0 -
Actually J C, a few posters on this thread have stated ways the theory of evolution could be conceivably falsified. One way would be to discover the hypothetical valid alternative, which would in theory negate the need for evolution in the way the world works, thereby falsifying it.
........and these sciences are not just "hypothetical valid alternatives".......they are ACTUAL valid REPLACEMENTS for Spontaneous Evolution!!!!You mean THE definition of science? The one which all scientists and dictionaries use? Ah, I see now. Creationists use different definitions of science... Sounds kind of unscientific if you ask me.. It must be the same way you seem to have a different definition of the word 'religion', calling evolution a religion and all that jazz.
.....so, do you now accept that Creation Science and ID are valid scientific endeavours that scientifically falsify Spontaneous Evolution????Originally Posted by J C
just like we cannot scientifically assess the personality of the person who created a particular nut and bolt.....
Galvasean
Um.. Yeah we can.
Well, by 'we' I mean the scientific community, not you and I literally. I mean I know I'm not actually a scientist, but hey, at least I can admit that much.
Originally Posted by J C
Critically, however, we can definitively conclude that both a bolt and a genome can ONLY be created by the appliance of intelligence......because they both possess the unique 'hallmark' of intelligent design.......SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY!!!!
.....and I must give credit to my ID colleagues for this amazing breakthrough in our scientific understanding of the wonderful Created World within which we live!!!!
Galvasean
Definitively?
Absolutely!!
Galvasean
ONLY?
Absolutely!!
Galvasean
Hallmark of Intelligent Design?
Absolutely!!
Galvasean
Amazing breakthrough?
Absolutely!!
Galvasean
Why do I keep asking questions?
....because you are looking for answers......and searching for God!!!!
Galvasean
Surely I know I wont get any straight answers?
Of course you will.......see above!!!
Galvasean
Who am I talking to?
Everyone on this thread!!!!
Galvasean
Why am I still here?
Because God loves you......
......and He has decided to leave you here!!!0 -
Actually J C, a few posters on this thread have stated ways the theory of evolution could be conceivably falsified. One way would be to discover the hypothetical valid alternative, which would in theory negate the need for evolution in the way the world works, thereby falsifying it.
That's what J C said... and completely wrong. It would falsify only that no valid alternatives exist; it would not falsify evolution itself.
Of course, there are far, far easier ways to actually falsify evolution. It's a wonder that scientists who are creationists haven't tried them yet. :pac:0 -
They would certainly demonstrate the POSSIBILITY of a Materialistic origin for life.....and if either were observed to be continuing to occur, this would eliminate the need for Direct Creation......
Wow, there is absolutely no part of that sentence which is scientific ... "need"?? What are you talking about?
It is though giving a fascinating look into your inner workings and what you apparently think science is.......in any event, you ALSO haven't shown how Spontaneous Evolution could be falsified.....so that it can comply with YOUR definition of science????Science can do a lot more than express the opinion that the ultimate generator of life is 'unknown'........it is now in a position to validly conclude that life had a pro-genator of inordinate intelligence and power!!!!
Not scientifically its not, since you cannot construct any model of the "pro-genator of inordinate intelligence and power" :rolleyes:It is interesting that Materialists are labelling the origins of life as 'unknown'......and indeed scientifically 'unknowable' .....
This seems to be a concept you are not quite getting. Which is strange for such a scientific mind such as yourself. :rolleyes:I am not and don't intend to demonstrate scientifically that the God of the Bible Created life.......science can only prove that an Intelligent Agent of enormous ability created all living things.......
What science can do is create theoretical models of what we think is happening and then test these models to find out how accurate they are.
Of course you cannot do that with your hypothetical "intelligent agent", you have no way to model what that is or what it is supposed to have done.
As such it is impossible for you to gauge in any scientific fashion how likely it is that this agent exists or operates in the manner that you believe it does based on your religious beliefs.but a Spontaneous Materialistic origin for life can be scientifically ruled out........and Spontaneous Evolution along with it !!!!!:D
The problem you have is that you appear to have swallowed the Creationist bull spit that faslifing Darwinian evolution some demonstrates Intelligent Design. As a scientist you should know that this isn't true.
Since there is no intelligent design theory in the scientific sense there is nothing to test, so irrespective of the accuracy of any other theory in science it is currently impossible to judge in any way how accurate intelligent design may be....as I have previously said, God is outside of science......but the physical results of His actions are accessible to our senses......and these physical phenomena CAN be scientifically evaluated!!!:D
You apparently don't understand what "scientifically evaluated" actually means, which (as I've said) is strange for someone who claims to work in science.
You do not evaluate physical phenomena in science. You construct theoretical models and evaluate them based how these models match or predict observed physical phenomena. The observed phenomena tells you little without first having a model.
You do not have a theoretical model of this intelligent agent that you claim created life, and as such you have nothing to evaluate in the first place.Critically, however, we can definitively conclude that both a bolt and a genome can ONLY be created by the appliance of intelligence
You cannot scientifically conclude either of those things, and that is a very unscientific statement to make.
What you can do is construct a model of how you believe the nut was created and then test this model against observation.
Again, you do not have a model of this "creator", and as such you have nothing to test.0 -
Evolution can be falsified by Creation Science and ID.....[/B] I mean that you STILL haven't provided an explanation of how Spontaneous Evolution could be scientifically falsified.....
Congratulations, you managed to contradict yourself, all in the same post. A new record!0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
daithifleming wrote: »What a dunce...
Let's try to discuss issues rather than post insults, please.0 -
Galvasean said:Quote:
Originally Posted by J C
Evolution can be falsified by Creation Science and ID.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by J C
[/b] I mean that you STILL haven't provided an explanation of how Spontaneous Evolution could be scientifically falsified..... Congratulations, you managed to contradict yourself, all in the same post. A new record!
and Wicknight concurred:Yes, I'm glad someone else picked up on that.
I mean that you STILL haven't provided an explanation of how Spontaneous Evolution could be scientifically falsified.....except via Creation Science and ID ......which you don't accept as valid sciences!!!!!
You guys trained in tabloid journalism?0 -
bonkey said:Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So you think the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is run by Christians? Not the liberal/agnostic/atheistic elite who run the rest of academia?
Such comments are a double-edged sword, wolfsbane.
You are either suggesting that the likes of Christian universities are not academic, or are run by liberal/agnostic/atheistic elite.Quote:
If the current materialistic explanation of the cosmos (evolution being a central constituent) did not challenge the basis of the Christian faith, then we would not bother.
It doesn't challenge the basis of the Christian Faith. A misinterpretation of it challenges those "flavours" of Christian faith who argue in favour of literal inerrancy of the books of Genesis. Unsurprisingly, among those doing the misinterpretation are those who insist that this gives reason to challenge it.
One would have thought that stressing what science is and what science is not would be a far more successful strategy in that respect. Remove the misinterpretation, and the problem disappears.
All of those challenge the basis of the Christian faith. Are they misrepresentations of the evolutionary case?0 -
daithifleming said:Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
the current materialistic explanation of the cosmos (evolution being a central constituent)
How does evolution explain the cosmos?0 -
Wicknight said:Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Since the Bible is being challenged, we seek to show that science is not opposed to the Biblical account - that a recent creation is in line with the evidence.
But you can't scientifically show that even if it is true, because even if the universe was created recently it still looks like it wasn't, and science can only ever deal with how the universe appears to be, not how your holy book claims it really is.
Salty seas
Evidence for a young earth
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/578/0 -
A bit of local interest:
Call to censor public information at the Giant’s Causeway, UKhttp://creationontheweb.com/content/view/57290 -
OK, but I assumed you would understand I meant secular academia. I'll try to be more pedantic in future.Hmm. What misinterpretation of your theory are we guilty of?
Watch...you're about to do it again.....Does evolution not teach that all life began from the simplest possible forms? That it began some 3.5 billion years ago? That the first human was not created around 6000 years ago, but evolved into being about 250,000 years ago?All of those challenge the basis of the Christian faith.Are they misrepresentations of the evolutionary case?
I'll repeat myself again.
Its a model. It is not a claim of what happened. It claims only to produce predictions which will match - with a high degree of accuracy - new observations....whether those observations be "repeats" of previous observations (i.e. we see more of the same) or they be something previously unseen.
Every time you, JC or anyone else starts off on this "it claims that X happened" you are misrepresenting things. Science makes no such claims. I readily accept that it is interpreted by some/many to make such claims...both supporters of science, and those like yourself who believe that its only reliable when it says things you agree with....but the problem there lies in the distinction between science and the interpretation of science.
You continuously attack the former, where your ire should be aimed at the latter. It is, in essence, no different to those who fail to make the distinction between the the bible and an individual interpretation of same. If one Christian thinks another is completely taking the wrong message from some section of the bible (like, oh, say....Genesis) this is not a comment on the bible.
Similarly, if you wish to disagree with the interpretation of the evolutionary model as an explanation of what happened then that is fine....but that has nothing to do with the science of said model.
Interestingly, your ability to distinguish between the bible and an interpretation thereof seems to be completely at odds with your inability to do the same when it comes to science. I'm not interested in speculating as to the reason why that is.0 -
Bonkey, I think your posts have been really good lately, so well done on that.0
-
Seems you missed the crucial caveat:
I mean that you STILL haven't provided an explanation of how Spontaneous Evolution could be scientifically falsified.....except via Creation Science and ID ......which you don't accept as valid sciences!!!!!
You guys trained in tabloid journalism?
Note, I already explained my position. I don't think I need to again.0 -
Advertisement
-
Originally Posted by Galvasean
Actually J C, a few posters on this thread have stated ways the theory of evolution could be conceivably falsified. One way would be to discover the hypothetical valid alternative, which would in theory negate the need for evolution in the way the world works, thereby falsifying it.
2Scoops
That's what J C said... and completely wrong. It would falsify only that no valid alternatives exist; it would not falsify evolution itself.
Of course, there are far, far easier ways to actually falsify evolution. It's a wonder that scientists who are creationists haven't tried them yet.Wicknight
Since there is no intelligent design theory in the scientific sense there is nothing to test, so irrespective of the accuracy of any other theory in science it is currently impossible to judge in any way how accurate intelligent design may be
I have news for you……you may ignore the current breakthroughs in ID research…….but it won't go away....
.....the evidence being assembled is overwhelming and provides unassailable PROOF for an intelligent origin for life!!!!!Originally Posted by J C
Evolution can be falsified by Creation Science and ID.....
........and these sciences are not just "hypothetical valid alternatives".......they are ACTUAL valid REPLACEMENTS for Spontaneous Evolution!!!!
Originally Posted by J C
I mean that you STILL haven't provided an explanation of how Spontaneous Evolution could be scientifically falsified.....except via Creation Science and ID ......which you don't accept as valid sciences!!!!!
.....so, do you now accept that Creation Science and ID are valid scientific endeavours that scientifically falsify Spontaneous Evolution????
Galvasean
Congratulations, you managed to contradict yourself, all in the same post. A new record!
I haven’t contradicted myself….the point that I was making is that Spontaneous Evolution can only be falsified by Creation / ID……..so the Evolutionist must ironically accept the scientific validity of these disciplines as ‘falsifiers’ of Spontaneous Evolution ……or else accept that Spontaneous Evolution cannot be scientifically falsified ……and therefore isn’t a valid scientific hypothesis, in the first place!!!!
….and that is ANOTHER reason why Creation Science and ID research are valid science disciplines!!!Originally Posted by J C
Critically, however, we can definitively conclude that both a bolt and a genome can ONLY be created by the appliance of intelligence
Wicknight
You cannot scientifically conclude either of those things, and that is a very unscientific statement to make.
What you can do is construct a model of how you believe the nut was created and then test this model against observation.
......so every time you see a nut and bolt do you always wonder whether it was spontaneously generated......or was the result of applied intelligence????:eek:
....and do you ALWAYS have to construct a model of how you believe the nut was created and then test this model against observation.....in order to answer the question of whether the nut and bolt were the result of applied intelligence???
......in any event, do you realise that such a model would rely on the science of Intelligent Design to scientifically evaluate it?????0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement