If there is no evidence for creation...

[AV1611VET]

Well AV-VET. Yer on your own here fella. Adios.

No problem, Lamb --- nothing here I can't handle.

 

[gaara4158]

Oh, boy! The circular logic assertion again! Yippie!

Look in the mirror, Biggles --- science runs on circular logic as well.

Q: How is science confirmed?
A: By science, of course!

And around and around we go.

Wow, seems like we didn't get throught to you last time. It doesn't matter what science does; you still have to justify your own circular logic.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Oh, boy! The circular logic assertion again! Yippie!

Look in the mirror, Biggles --- science runs on circular logic as well.

Q: How is science confirmed?
A: By science, of course!

And around and around we go.

Wrong. Science does not rely on science to confirm its predictions, but on observation. Suppose you have developed a new herbicide, but you are unsure whether it's harmful to crops. The solution is trivial - spray it on some crops grown in your laboratory greenhouse and see what happens. If the crops survive, congratulations! You just earned yourself a raise and confirmed your theory without using circular logic.

 

[AV1611VET]

The solution is trivial - spray it on some crops grown in your laboratory greenhouse and see what happens. If the crops survive, congratulations! You just earned yourself a raise and confirmed your theory without using circular logic.

And that's not "doing science"?

 

[gaara4158]

And that's not "doing science"?

It's a scientific approach to a real problem. And guess what; there was no circular logic involved.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a scientific approach to a real problem. And guess what; there was no circular logic involved.

I didn't say there was; but if you wanted this herbicide independently confirmed, you'd have to have another scientist do his experiments as well.

 

[gaara4158]

I didn't say there was; but if you wanted this herbicide independently confirmed, you'd have to have another scientist do his experiments as well.

Yes, you would.

Now I'm going to ask again: How is the circular logic in the Bible justified?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, you would.

Now I'm going to ask again: How is the circular logic in the Bible justified?

By faith in their observations ---

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

--- remember my Mariana Trench thread?

 

[Vene]

I didn't say there was; but if you wanted this herbicide independently confirmed, you'd have to have another scientist do his experiments as well.

Amazingly, that is what happens. When results are published in peer-review journals, they are tested independently by other scientists. If results differ those results are published. The new results are tested, and those results are tested, and so on.

 

[gaara4158]

By faith in their observations ---

Which are only written in the Bible, whose valitidy is under scrutiny. Again, why should we believe the Bible?

The mariana trench thread was a train wreck on your part, AV. It astounds me how you archive these threads in which you are resoundingly crushed and use them for later arguments. Good subject-changers, I suppose.

 

[AV1611VET]

Amazingly, that is what happens. When results are published in peer-review journals, they are tested independently by other scientists. If results differ those results are published. The new results are tested, and those results are tested, and so on.

Thus science confirms science, eh?

 

[gaara4158]

Thus science confirms science, eh?

For someone who hates shameless rhetoric, you sure use a lot of it yourself. It's not circular logic. Further experimentation confirms or denies the results of previous expeimentation. There's no bias; whatever happens is recorded, and adds to our vast bank of knowledge.

 

[Vene]

Thus science confirms science, eh?

It's like talking to a brick wall.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not circular logic. Further experimentation confirms or denies the results of previous expeimentation. There's no bias; whatever happens is recorded, and adds to our vast bank of knowledge.

Then the Bible isn't circular logic, either. Further Documentation confirmed or denied the interpretation of previous Documentation. There's no bias; whatever happened was documented, and added to their vast bank of knowledge.

 

[Danyc]

Then the Bible isn't circular logic, either. Further Documentation confirmed or denied the interpretation of previous Documentation. There's no bias; whatever happened was documented, and added to their vast bank of knowledge.

The moment you changed experimentation to documentation, the analogy was broken.

 

[AV1611VET]

The moment you changed experimentation to documentation, the analogy was broken.

Then QV my Mariana Trench thread.

 

[gaara4158]

Then the Bible isn't circular logic, either. Further Documentation confirmed or denied the interpretation of previous Documentation. There's no bias; whatever happened was documented, and added to their vast bank of knowledge.

Problem: What you're describing is the process of interpreting the Bible, not verifying it.

 

[gaara4158]

watcha

 

[gaara4158]

Then QV my Mariana Trench thread.

How about you actually answer a question instead of changing the subject?

 

[AV1611VET]

How about you actually answer a question instead of changing the subject?

If you have a specific question, Gaara, ask it --- and if I don't know the answer, I'll say so.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. If you think we're using circular logic because our Documentation confirms our Documentation; then I think you're using circular logic because your documentation confirms your documentation.

And if you think you're not circular because you can go to the Mariana Trench and measure the depth yourself, then I don't think I'm circular because I can go to Jerusalem and confirm its existence for myself as well.

And if you want to get real cute and apply this to the Creation, then I can get real cute and apply this to your Big Bang. If I can't go back and independently confirm the Creation, you can't go back and independently confirm the Big Bang.

So let's just get off the merry-go-round, okay?

Whatever you say about me, I'll say the same about you --- fair enough?