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
-
-
Good old circular reasoning.[/B]
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!!!
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
......aren't you being a little hard on Materialistic Evolutionists by dubbing them 'prehistoric creatures'........wouldn't 'creatures that are threatened with extinction' be more accurate?????Galvasean
Fighting for the rights of prehistoric creatures since 1986!
:pac::):D
.....the pips are squeaking......the pips are squeaking!!!!!!:D0 -
Okay, this is what I said:I don't see how you have explained your position.
“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 my two cents on the subject. I think its detailed enough. Feel free to disagree and/or post rebuttals.You posted two quotations from JC, but edited one of them to make it appear that he had contradicted himself. (Prompting thanks, agreement and a gratuitous insult from your fellow posters.) So what is your position? Was the editing deliberate or accidental?
Yeah, the editing was done on purpose. (Sorry J C, I couldn't resist when you put all those full stops after the word ‘falsified’) But bear in mind what I quoted was a full sentence of his (apparently, those full stops are tricky business) and I didn’t change his wording at all. It was supposed to be a joke. I have no control over what others say afterwards. I’m not one to attack posters personally. Anyway as Wolfsbane pointed out, it was tabloidism on my part.
It does show that there are people out there who scientifically assess people’s personalities and how they affect their behavior. I haven’t taken the course myself. I’m sure one of the other posters might be better articulated to explain psychology than I.[/B].....so, tell me how to go about scientifically assessing the personality of the person who created a particular nut and bolt????
......your link certainly doesn't explain how this could be done!!!:D
Not necessarily. There could be other alternatives that you and I are simply not aware of.....anyway ID and Creation Science have to be valid sciences in order that they can validly falsify Spontaneous Evolution.......
That makes no sense. It’s like saying, Sonia O’ Sullivan isn’t a professional footballer, ergo neither is Wayne Rooney!.....and if they are not valid sciences.....then Spontaneous Evolution isn't a valid science either!!!......aren't you being a little hard on Materialistic Evolutionists by dubbing them 'prehistoric creatures'........wouldn't 'creatures that are threatened with extinction' be more accurate?????:pac::):D
Okay, that was one hell of a leap, even for you. Amazing that you could deduce what I was talking about. Well actually no, not amazing at all considering you missed the point of my signature. It’s actually a joke. The whole point of said joke being you can’t really fight for the rights of prehistoric creatures, what with being dead and all..
(Although I’m glad to see that you are willing to finish your posting tongue-in-cheek. It shows that we have at least a few things in common
)
edit: phew, multi quoting is tricky!0 -
Advertisement
-
Okay, this is what I said:
“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 my two cents on the subject. I think its detailed enough. Feel free to disagree and/or post rebuttals.
Okay, perhaps I'm selling you a bit short there. If you want to discuss my position more so I will gladly come back and post more tomorrow if you want when I have more energy to talk about such potentially complex things. I'm quite tired (been in work all day) at the moment.
Until then, enjoy the rest of your Sabbath day! 0 -
-
Okay, perhaps I'm selling you a bit short there. If you want to discuss my position more so I will gladly come back and post more tomorrow if you want when I have more energy to talk about such potentially complex things. I'm quite tired (been in work all day) at the moment.
Until then, enjoy the rest of your Sabbath day!
Thank you for your good wishes.......and I hope that you will have a good, well-earned sleep tonight.
It must be tough working when other people are off.
I'm not a STRICT Sabbath observer myself.....and I am acutely aware that many people have to work, so that I can take my Sunday off.
As Jesus Christ reminded us in Mt 12:1-13 keeping holy the Sabbath Day doesn't preclude us from doing necessary or good work on a Sunday:-
1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
9 And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
10 And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
13 Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.
We do need regular rest days....and we should engage in communal worship of God on Sundays.:D0 -
-
-
Finding historical patterns of animal development that contradict evolutionary prediction.[/B]……..so WHAT are these ‘far easier ways to actually falsify evolution’ then????
Notice the word "prediction", its important you understand that science is about testing models, not telling people what is or was happening (as bonkey has explained)How very convenient
Convenient wouldn't be the word I would use.……..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!!!!!!
It is impossible to judge in any way how accurate the idea of intelligent design may or may not be, so yes it is ignored from a scientific point of view.
What else can science do?
If it is impossible to test an idea, or even form a theory (a model) around that idea then science can do nothing with that idea. It is basically guessing, with no way to judge if you are accurate or not.I have news for you……you may ignore the current breakthroughs in ID research…….but it won't go away....
Unfortunately I have no doubt that it won't go away, but until one of you guys comes up with scientific model of what you think happened and what you think caused it to happen, a falsifiable model that can be tested with prediction, it will continue to be ignored by science.
And rightly so because, as has been said many times, Intelligent Design (as it is at the moment) is not science......the evidence being assembled is overwhelming and provides unassailable PROOF for an intelligent origin for life!!!!!
That's wonderful JC, but that isn't science.
You have no testable model of what you think happened or what you think caused it to happen, so any "evidence" you assemble is irrelevant because you have nothing to use this "evidence" with. Its not evidence for anything in of itself because you don't have the thing you are supposed to be matching it with (a scientific theory/model).
When you come up with a scientific model you can then collect all the evidence you like and see if this evidence matches the predictions of your model. You can then say that your model appears to be highly accurate (or not accurate at all if the predictions do not match the observations).
But until you actually do that you aren't doing science.
So you can rant all you like about all the conclusions you have drawn from any evidence you like, but it is not science. Its just you, and other Creationists, drawing conclusions (or as I see it, guessing).
As I'm sure you are already aware of, being the highly trained scientist you are :rolleyes:I haven’t contradicted myself….the point that I was making is that Spontaneous Evolution can only be falsified by Creation / ID
You did contradict yourself, though as I said to Wolfsbane it was probably not fair to pick on you as at the time you appeared not to understand what falsifiable meant, and as such you were probably not aware you were contradicting yourself. So apologies for laughing.
I hope you do now understand what falsifiable means from a scientific position, and why your statement about ID being the only way to falsify Darwinian Evolution is a very inaccurate statement.….and that is ANOTHER reason why Creation Science and ID research are valid science disciplines!!!
Even if your statement was true, that ID was the only way to falsify Darwinian biological evolution, that would not make ID a valid science discipline. In fact the two things have nothing to do with each other.
Intelligent Design could falsify Darwinian Evolution (it is certainly not the only thing that could), but you would first have to make Intelligent Design a scientific model, which it currently isn't, and then demonstrate that this model is accurate (which you can't because you don't have a model in the first place)......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:
No....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???
Again, no.
I also wouldn't walk around pretending that I had, as you do with your conclusion of intelligent design.
I don't have a whole lot of problem if you want to conclude that nature must have been intelligently designed, in the same way a person can conclude that a nut and bolt must have been created by Bill down the road. To you, a Biblical literalist, this is probably "common sense".
The problem comes when you start pretending that you have some how supported this conclusion of yours with science. You haven't. You are just concluding things (in a not particularly rational fashion in my opinion). That is not science.0 -
-
……I was once an Evolutionist……and my beliefs and thought processes were exactly like yours.....so I know where you are coming from!!!:)
Hi again J C, sorry for showing up late. It was just too sunny today to spend the morning online!
Well, I would go about replying to the rest of your post, but it seems Bonkey has said everything I would have wanted to (except more articulately).
No particular reason for quoting that exact bit of text mind, I just enjoy the common ground.0 -
1+1=2 is a logical calculation, one based on rules that we invented in the first place. You can't find evidence to the contrary, not because you won't but because that isn't how maths works. 1+1=2 not because this is some universal truth, but because that is the true we decided in the first place.
If they'd known this it would have saved Russell and Whitehead 379 pages of workings
(yea sorry to bring up this old post)
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=umhistmath&cc=umhistmath&idno=aat3201.0001.001&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=4010 -
If they'd known this it would have saved Russell and Whitehead 379 pages of workings
(yea sorry to bring up this old post)
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=umhistmath&cc=umhistmath&idno=aat3201.0001.001&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=401
LOL
Well yes, 1+1=2 is derived from simpiler principles (mainly how we define N), but my point is the same.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Wicknight said:
Please provide the reference in AiG. I can only remember them saying for example, The ‘most perplexing’ such galaxy to date has an apparent age (again according to evolutionary theories) of 3.5 billion years. Note the caveat. You still having bother with caveats?You can't deny it looks billions of years old, because it looks billions of years old. There is no denying that, even websites like AiG concede that fact.
We can certainly put forward such a theory to explain what your theory says is billions of years old, but that is not accepting the universe looks that old in the first place. Just going outside at night and looking at the stars, or going to the observatory, gives no indication of age - either way. It is only the application of assumptions and hypotheses that give rise to age estimations.You can deny it is billions of years old by putting forward a theory (demonstrated to be accurate) that explains how it can look billions of years old but still be very young. But there is no denying what it looks like.0 -
-
Please provide the reference in AiG.
Certainly
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4389starlight10-10-2000.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/cosmology.asp
In creationists circles it is called the "Starlight Problem", as AiG call it as well. It is well known enough to have a Wikipedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlight_problem
YEC do not conceed that the universe is actually billion of years old, they believe it is only a few thousand years. What the solutions to the starlight problem attempt to explain is why the universe looks like it is billions of years old, when in fact it isn't.
When I say "looks like", I mean the speed of light looks like it has an upper limit (which most Creationists accept) and the universe looks like it is very very big (again, which most Creationists accept). Therefore the universe looks like it is very old, because the light needed time to get from one point to us. That is what the Creationists don't accept, they believe there is some unknown process or factor that changes this set up so that the universe can fit a Biblical time frame.I can only remember them saying for example, The ‘most perplexing’ such galaxy to date has an apparent age (again according to evolutionary theories) of 3.5 billion years. Note the caveat. You still having bother with caveats?
I have no idea what they mean by "according to evolutionary theories", evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the age of the universe.
Actually it does, because according to general relativity (which most Creationists accept as an accurate model, including the ones I've seen on AiG), light has an upper speed limit, and these stars are very very far away.Just going outside at night and looking at the stars, or going to the observatory, gives no indication of age - either way.
A lot of Creationists, while agreeing the current speed of light limit, work with the idea that the speed of light in the past was different.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement