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
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
bonkey said:
OK, but I assumed you would understand I meant secular academia. I'll try to be more pedantic in future.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.
Hmm. What misinterpretation of your theory are we guilty of? 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?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 -
-
-
-
Its not pedanticism, its accuracy. You seem, at times, far too willing to sacrifice accuracy on the altar of expediency...and then try to make it out to be someone else who is at fault when they correct you.OK, but I assumed you would understand I meant secular academia. I'll try to be more pedantic in future.
You and JC both seem to be incapable of understanding, no matter how often that I say it, that a scientific model is not a claim of how reality works. It is a model which claims to produce predictions which will match observation.Hmm. What misinterpretation of your theory are we guilty of?
Watch...you're about to do it again.....
See? There you go again, confusing a model as being some sort of claim that this is what happened.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?
They challenge the basis of your interpretation of the Christian faith. Again, you sacrifice accuracy for expediency. There are no shortage of Christians who do not accept that the accounts of Genesis are inerrantly literal. Now, I know that you don't accept that such people are true Christians, but to be honest, you've yet to establish yourself as the definitive authority on what is and is not Christianity, so I hope you'll understand that I'm not willing to accept your definition just on your say-so.All of those challenge the basis of the Christian faith.
Yes.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 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
……..so WHAT are these ‘far easier ways to actually falsify evolution’ then????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.
How very convenient……..just say “there be dragons over there with that ID stuff”…….and it is currently impossible to judge in any way how accurate intelligent design may be”…..and the Materialist then simply ignores it ……and hopes that it will simply go away!!!!!!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