Same Evidence - Opposite Conclusions

Commander · Sep 13, 2016

Speedwell said:
Written history is not, cannot be considered as scientific evidence. It may describe scientific evidence, tell us where to look for scientific evidence, but it is not in itself evidence. The Bible is no more evidence of Special Creation than Darwin's Origin of Species is evidence of evolution.

Archaeology- http://madworldnews.com/archaeologists-biblical-jesus/ . BTW-Jesus is mentioned in more than 60 text outside of the Biblical text. What do you believe, if you don't believe the Bible, or the Enuma elish?

Speedwell · Sep 13, 2016

Commander said:
Archaeology- http://madworldnews.com/archaeologists-biblical-jesus/ . BTW-Jesus is mentioned in more than 60 text outside of the Biblical text.

Right. It's the ossuaries that are the evidence, not the Bible.

Commander · Sep 13, 2016

Speedwell said:
Right. It's the ossuaries that are the evidence, not the Bible.

The Bible tells us about James(the brother of Jesus), and Caiaphas. How does one know who they were without the Bible?

sfs · Sep 13, 2016

klutedavid said:
If the fundamental laws of physics can break down at some point in time, then these
fundamental laws of physics cannot ever be regarded as constants. Science assumes
that all fundamental forces are constant through time.

As Rick has pointed out, this subject is off-topic here. It's his thread, so it's his rules. Now, do you have any examples from earth science of creationists and conventional scientists using the same data?

Hieronymus · Sep 13, 2016

Speedwell said:
The Bible is no more evidence of the Flood than Darwin's Origin of Species is evidence of evolution.

Great comparison there...
(not)
Darwin's book doesn't even claim to be a historical narrative, and there are no eye witnesses to the actual origins of species either.

Speedwell · Sep 13, 2016

Hieronymus said:
Great comparison there...
(not)
Darwin's book doesn't even claim to be a historical narrative, and there are no eye witnesses to the actual origins of species either.

It doesn't matter if it is an historical narrative or not. It is still not, in itself, scientific evidence. And unsubstantiated claims like that about the nature of the narrative don't improve the situation.

klutedavid · Sep 13, 2016

sfs said:
As Rick has pointed out, this subject is off-topic here. It's his thread, so it's his rules. Now, do you have any examples from earth science of creationists and conventional scientists using the same data?

Hello sfs.

Geological rock strata would be considered evidence by both creation science
and secular science.

So sfs, if I asked you how old a specific rock strata was, how would you determine
it's age?

sfs · Sep 14, 2016

klutedavid said:
Hello sfs.

Geological rock strata would be considered evidence by both creation science
and secular science.

So sfs, if I asked you how old a specific rock strata was, how would you determine
it's age?

If you have a case where rock strata were considered evidence by both creation science and secular science, present it. That's what this thread is for.

RickG · Sep 14, 2016

klutedavid said:
Hello sfs.

If the fundamental laws of physics can break down at some point in time, then these
fundamental laws of physics cannot ever be regarded as constants. Science assumes
that all fundamental forces are constant through time.

It is not the type of break down you suggest. The break down is the pre-physics of what we observe today. That is how our physics developed. At the big bang there were no atoms. There was a period where subatomic particles had to form, then eventually atoms; and at that only hydrogen and helium. It was not until stars formed that larger atoms could be formed and supernovae for the heavy elements. Atoms take up an enormous amount of space with respect to their components (electron, protons, neutrons, etc.). So, its not the actually a breakdown or different physics you want it to be to support your position, rather the process in which physics developed. Of course you are thinking "how do we know"? We know because light from stellar objects millions of light years distant is just now reaching us, and the physics and chemistry we observe is the same as we observe on earth today.

Now, please follow the forum rules and get on topic. Not a single post in 6 pages has yet to address the topic of this thread. Do I need to get a moderator involved?

RickG · Sep 14, 2016

Hieronymus said:
The Flood.
However, you limited the evidence that may be used to the evidence the mainstream uses.
But there's more to the Flood story than only that.
The Flood is backed by written history (conveniently dismissed as legend or myth) and accounts for the apparent bottleneck the gene pool had to go through.

But you've heard my view on this many times before, i think i'll leave the discussion this time.