Age of the World

[juvenissun]

Why not just stop beating around the bush and present it? Because, you know, your hesitance to do so sounds, to us, a lot like you know your argument is completely invalid. It sounds like you know that it is full of logical errors. And therefore you fear that your own weaknesses in logic will be pointed out to you and made bare.

In short, your failure to just come out and state your argument makes it seem like you don't have any argument at all.

There will be no logic error at all. But there will be logic implication in some cases. Such as the example I gave: If the Bible says "clear", could I take it as "colorless"? You need to know the Bible is not a science text. This type of "interpretation" is needed in many cases.

Unless we have reached some type of agreement on the way of "interpretation", I am not going to tell you what I know. There is no use to push, I will not bit the bait. Your disbelieve is, in fact, not my concern. I am trying to tell you some interesting science information in the Bible. There could be a case that no matter how logic my argument is, you will say: lunatic. And I do not want to be insulted that way on my inspired understanding.

If you want to hear something, then give me a format of argument which you can accept as a valid scientific argument. Once we have an agreement, then I can tell you some wonderful science messages in the Bible.

 

[juvenissun]

"Clear" and "colourless" are not at all the same thing. The sky is certainly clear; it is not colourless to our eyes, however. Furthermore, clear is not nearly so defined by our senses as colour is.

Yes, you can argue it favorably or unfavorably.
That is the point. If I tell you one interpretation, you can easily disagree simply because you don't want to agree.
If so, why should I waste my time to tell you anything?

 

[juvenissun]

The ones you choose to ignore so that you can worship a book undisturbed.

Try me, what did I choose to ignore?
I bet you could not even name ONE!

 

[FishFace]

Evolutionist have no idea on what those data mean. They simply make up a story to satisfy any report or publication (Pretended that they made some type of prediction or discovery, so they can get the next grant or budget. That is called intelligent self-cheating).

Creationist sees the same data. They do not understand them either, but not a bit less than what evolutionist can see. However, the research confirms their belief more and more.

So you're accusing scientists of making up stories that they predicted Vitamin C, Chromosome 2 and Tiktaalik patterns before the evidence.

I assume you will retract that if we look out the articles.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Evolutionist have no idea on what those data mean. They simply make up a story to satisfy any report or publication (Pretended that they made some type of prediction or discovery, so they can get the next grant or budget. That is called intelligent self-cheating).

Creationist sees the same data. They do not understand them either, but not a bit less than what evolutionist can see. However, the research confirms their belief more and more.

So... no one has any idea what 300+ years of data mean, but whatever it means it certainly supports creationism.

You might want to look into checking your posts for sensibility before submitting.

 

[Chalnoth]

Try me, what did I choose to ignore?
I bet you could not even name ONE!

Here's a teeny, tiny bit of evidence that shows pretty well the fact that humans and the other apes share a common ancestry, in 4-minute video form:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

This is just one tiny piece of a mountain of genetic evidence.

Also, here's a rather old but still relevant essay on the subject:
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

 

[Skaloop]

So, if I say the Bible is correct in this case, you can say that I am wrong.</quote>

You are wrong.

<quote>If so, I can not convince you. And I am not going to tell you what is the science revealed in the Bible. As a result, you have high chance to miss the wonderful Biblical message in science.

You're not going to tell me what the science of the Bible is because there is none. If there is, produce it.

And I have not missed the Biblical message. I have heard it, and it is lacking in any merit.

 

[Skaloop]

Evolutionist have no idea on what those data mean. They simply make up a story to satisfy any report or publication (Pretended that they made some type of prediction or discovery, so they can get the next grant or budget. That is called intelligent self-cheating).

No, it's called real science. And it's far from made up, considering that it fits with every relevant scientific discovery of the past 150 years.

Creationist sees the same data. They do not understand them either, but not a bit less than what evolutionist can see. However, the research confirms their belief more and more.

Again, show that research. Creationists have no research, so I am keen on seeing what you have to offer. And no scientific discoveries point away from evolution towards Creationism. Some findings may be consistent with a Creator, but if the Creator is all powerful, then any and all findings would be consistent with a Creator. But that doesn't make it true without evidence in its favour.

 

[Skaloop]

Yes, you can argue it favorably or unfavorably.
That is the point. If I tell you one interpretation, you can easily disagree simply because you don't want to agree.
If so, why should I waste my time to tell you anything?

"Clear" and "Colourless" are not the same thing. That is not open to interpretation. If you think they are because the bible says so, you are (to use your own term from a previous post) a lunatic.

 

[Chalnoth]

"Clear" and "Colourless" are not the same thing. That is not open to interpretation. If you think they are because the bible says so, you are (to use your own term from a previous post) a lunatic.

Well, technically, there are problems of translation here. The original language may not make any such distinction, for instance.

 

[Skaloop]

Well, technically, there are problems of translation here. The original language may not make any such distinction, for instance.

Granted, but if it's in the Bible that still points to a God that doesn't know something that I was specifically taught in 8th grade chemistry.

 

[juvenissun]

So you're accusing scientists of making up stories that they predicted Vitamin C, Chromosome 2 and Tiktaalik patterns before the evidence.

I assume you will retract that if we look out the articles.

I am not saying all of them do that. But there are many who were just doing that. For instance, those people who synthesized VIOXX, and also people who made many other disastrous products.

Nevertheless, we do learn slowly. Because we are born with wisdom. This is a example of conclusion made by Creationist.

 

[juvenissun]

Here's a teeny, tiny bit of evidence that shows pretty well the fact that humans and the other apes share a common ancestry, in 4-minute video form:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

This is just one tiny piece of a mountain of genetic evidence.

Also, here's a rather old but still relevant essay on the subject:
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

These are all political, not scientific. I know it, you know it.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, technically, there are problems of translation here. The original language may not make any such distinction, for instance.

I AM talking about original language. When consider scientific message in the Bible, translations are only references. In most cases, they (translators) either don't know what they are talking about, or they are wrong. They are Bible scholars, not scientists.

 

[Skaloop]

I AM talking about original language. When consider scientific message in the Bible, translations are only references. In most cases, they (translators) either don't know what they are talking about, or they are wrong. They are Bible scholars, not scientists.

If translators don't know what they are talking about, why trust their translations?

 

[juvenissun]

"Clear" and "Colourless" are not the same thing. That is not open to interpretation. If you think they are because the bible says so, you are (to use your own term from a previous post) a lunatic.

They could be. Colorless is one case of "clear". If I interpreted clear as colorless, I am not wrong. Even there are alternatives.

 

[TeddyKGB]

I am not saying all of them do that. But there are many who were just doing that. For instance, those people who synthesized VIOXX, and also people who made many other disastrous products.

Rofecoxib produced side-effects that were nearly impossible to duplicate in a lab. Its makers did not lie or make erroneous predictions about Rofecoxib's benefits; they simply did not yet know about its drawbacks when the FDA approved. And by what method do you think they came to know about those flaws?

In any case, I fail to see what a pharmacology anecdote has to do with evolutionary biology.

 

[juvenissun]

No, it's called real science. And it's far from made up, considering that it fits with every relevant scientific discovery of the past 150 years.



Again, show that research. Creationists have no research, so I am keen on seeing what you have to offer. And no scientific discoveries point away from evolution towards Creationism. Some findings may be consistent with a Creator, but if the Creator is all powerful, then any and all findings would be consistent with a Creator. But that doesn't make it true without evidence in its favour.

Just take any research paper from any journal. How do you know the author is not a Creationist? Even in some revolution journals?
There are millions of creationists out there (include me). Not just those in AiG or ICR. Those so-called Creationists, by you, are doing more important work than just scientific research.

 

[Skaloop]

They could be. Colorless is one case of "clear". If I interpreted clear as colorless, I am not wrong. Even there are alternatives.

You might not be wrong, but you'd be ill-informed. Lots of coloured things are clear, so interpreting them to mean the same thing is done at your own peril.

Something that is colourless need not be clear. Something that is clear need not be colourless.

 

[BrainHertz]

No.

Science is a method, not an answer.

Methods lead to a conclusion (answer or not). We are talking about conclusions. Would that be science or scientific?

It isn't meaningful to ask whether a conclusion is "science" without knowing the method used to arrive at it.

If I used voodoo to "predict" the outcome of a die roll and happened to get the correct answer, would you consider my prediction to be scientific?