Honest Question

[razzelflabben]

aisy...so you return, are you now ready to deal with what I am saying and not what you want me to say...our last encounter didn't go well....

Where in Gen is evolution (speciation over time through random mutation and natural selection) predicted?

Gen. 4:19 Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah. 20 Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock. 21 His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play the harp and flute. 22 Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of [g] bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain's sister was Naamah.

Falsifying ToE doesn't not do a thing for Creationism; it wouldn't win by default, but by its own merits.

and yet the evidence for the most part, supports both creation and evolution, so you have a problem...when or if the toe is falsified, either creation is also falsified, or it is not. If it is not, then Creation wins, not by default, but by evidence.

You

may not be denying change/speciation, but since other people have and do, it is false to say "no one is denying change/speciation/evolution". The ToE is the explanation of how change/speciation occur.

not when the reference is this thread and this discussion in particular. I know what ToE is, I'm not stupid...I might however ask you if you know what the creation account really says?

That some evolutionists lie doesn't falsify the theory.

you haven't been following the discussion have you???? I'm not suggesting it does, I'm suggesting that lieing is not limited to those who believe in Creation or Evolution as the origins of the species, but rather that lieing is the nature of man in general thus saying that creationists lie and Evolutionists don't, is a lie in and of itself and has not value to the discussion at hand...you would do well to catch up in the discussion before trying to prove how much smarter you are than anyone else.

The words are related, but supernatural means not natural or beyond natural. How do you test for supernaturality other than by ruling out naturality?

by testing how or if the supernatural works in and with and through our natural world...stated very clearly many times over now, please do catch up.

We don't know how EVERYTHING in our world works.

awesome, we agree on that, the comment by another poster, related to this idea, was indeed wrong. I knew if we tried we could find something to agree on.

That's part of it, but you also need to state what would falsify the prediction. What would you expect to see and what should you not be able to see?

yep, stated, agreed upon, insisted upon.

If something is "unexplainable" (or do you mean "unexplained"?) then if testing yields an explanation (ie supernatural), then it is not "unexplainable", is it? I don't understand what you mean to say.

it is unexplainable if the test does not show supernatural, but if it evidences supernatural, then it is indeed explainable isn't it. What you are missing is that there is in this world, evidence of the supernatural, that is not the same thing as saying there is evidence of the unexplainable, but rather evidence of the explainable, supernatural...don't confuse the two.

And if the test fails, then what? Would that be evidence that the supernatural does not exist?

Yep....isn't that how science works??? what is falsified is evidence of what is not????

 

[DaisyDay]

aisy...so you return, are you now ready to deal with what I am saying and not what you want me to say...our last encounter didn't go well....

I have always tried to deal with what you are saying as there isn't anything that I want you to say...you got reprimanded for insults, I gather. For what it's worth, I don't know who reported you, but some other people got suspended for that thread.

Gen. 4:19 Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah. 20 Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock. 21 His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play the harp and flute. 22 Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of [g] bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain's sister was Naamah.

Siblings having different talents predicts evolution? All the siblings are the same species so I don't see where the prediction of evolution lays in that.

and yet the evidence for the most part, supports both creation and evolution, so you have a problem...when or if the toe is falsified, either creation is also falsified, or it is not. If it is not, then Creation wins, not by default, but by evidence.

First, evolution only comes into play after initial creation (be it natural or supernatural, abiogenesis or Genesis). Second, as you have mentioned before, there are many flavors of creation, more than a few of which are not even Christian. Little of the evidence that supports the ToE supports full-blown creation (creation w/o evolution).

not when the reference is this thread and this discussion in particular. I know what ToE is, I'm not stupid...I might however ask you if you know what the creation account really says?

Which one? I would be grateful if you would explain which one you mean and how it differs from the ToE, briefly.

you haven't been following the discussion have you???? I'm not suggesting it does, I'm suggesting that lieing is not limited to those who believe in Creation or Evolution as the origins of the species, but rather that lieing is the nature of man in general thus saying that creationists lie and Evolutionists don't, is a lie in and of itself and has not value to the discussion at hand...you would do well to catch up in the discussion before trying to prove how much smarter you are than anyone else.

Yes, people lie and no, I'm not particularly smart.

by testing how or if the supernatural works in and with and through our natural world...stated very clearly many times over now, please do catch up.

Although you've stated that many times, you have always left out an important part of the test - how you can tell if the test has failed, what you would expect to see if it were not true.

yep, stated, agreed upon, insisted upon.

Then, what would you expect to see if creation were not true? <- that's a question.

it is unexplainable if the test does not show supernatural, but if it evidences supernatural, then it is indeed explainable isn't it.What you are missing is that there is in this world, evidence of the supernatural, that is not the same thing as saying there is evidence of the unexplainable, but rather evidence of the explainable, supernatural...don't confuse the two.

I wasn't confusing the two, I was commenting on your use of "unexplainable" of something that was subsequently explained by you. It is not unexplainable if you have an explanation.

What is an example of supernatural evidence? I'm trying to understand what you want to say.

Yep....isn't that how science works??? what is falsified is evidence of what is not????

Ok, so theoretically, what would falsify your version of creation? (I think you all already covered what would falsify the ToE, preCambrian bunnies and such).

 

[razzelflabben]

I have always tried to deal with what you are saying as there isn't anything that I want you to say...you got reprimanded for insults, I gather. For what it's worth, I don't know who reported you, but some other people got suspended for that thread.

but you seldom address what I actually said, and insist that I said something else. This continues and I will no longer post responses to you, it is unfair, and rude to say the least. Especially when you bring old things up that I didn't say and get me into trouble for saying, "enough". As to reporting, I was reported for telling you that it is against the rules to bring in old discussions that are not related to the discussion at hand....intersting how warning you to stick with the program is against the rules, but that is what happened...and no, it had nothing to do with insults, only correcting you rather than to report you right off the bat.

Siblings having different talents predicts evolution? All the siblings are the same species so I don't see where the prediction of evolution lays in that.
First, evolution only comes into play after initial creation (be it natural or supernatural, abiogenesis or Genesis). Second, as you have mentioned before, there are many flavors of creation, more than a few of which are not even Christian. Little of the evidence that supports the ToE supports full-blown creation (creation w/o evolution).

that those "talents" as you call them are passed down from one generation to another without the offspring being identical to the parent is predicted. Being that evolution not the ToE is about change (by definition) it is absolutely predicted using Gen. as the model we are testing.

And btw, the evidence for the most part does indeed support the creation described in the bible, with one minor exception of which is not enough to falsify only test further.

Which one? I would be grateful if you would explain which one you mean and how it differs from the ToE, briefly.

the one being discussed currently of course, put it into context...I am talking about this current discussion and ask if you know what THE biblical creation account allows for and what it does not....by reason of logic, I could not be talking about any form of creation, or any suggested branch of creation, but rather a specific discussion, a specific understanding as was detailed in the discussion and you were asked to read through before posting further.

Yes, people lie and no, I'm not particularly smart.

right, to the first, the second, the jury is still out...in this discussion, the one you were asked to educate yourself on before posting further, the other poster, who apparently is now gone, claimed that all creationists lie but evolutionists don't. Which is and of itself a lie. People lie, it doesn't have anything to do with a specific belief...the conversation digressed from there.

Although you've stated that many times, you have always left out an important part of the test - how you can tell if the test has failed, what you would expect to see if it were not true.

Well, that depends on the deity we are testing for....something I have said many times over. Each deity makes different claims as to what or how they are involved in the natural world. Taking those claims, we can test for their evidence. Think scientific model here...

Then, what would you expect to see if creation were not true? <- that's a question.

that is a question you must answer if your an evolutionist bent on evidencing creation falsified.

Personally, I have looked at both for falsifying evidence as well as supporting evidence and find both lacking in both.

I wasn't confusing the two, I was commenting on your use of "unexplainable" of something that was subsequently explained by you. It is not unexplainable if you have an explanation.

I think you need to educate yourself on the discussion at hand before making this kind of false claim about my comments. Taking them out of context and twisting them isn't helping your cause here.

What is an example of supernatural evidence? I'm trying to understand what you want to say.

depends on the supernatural being tested for.

Ok, so theoretically, what would falsify your version of creation? (I think you all already covered what would falsify the ToE, preCambrian bunnies and such).

My version???? I have clearly stated that I am a skeptic from a scientific standpoint, so what "version of creation" would that make me??? I don't know, I'm stumped, and while we're talking about it, what "version of evolutionist" would that make me? I really don't understand your question in light of the actual discussion taking place. What version of belief is any skeptic????

 

[Naraoia]

that is a question you must answer if your an evolutionist bent on evidencing creation falsified.

Yes, to falsify a hypothesis you have to know what falsifies it. But you also have to know that in order to verify a hypothesis. If you don't know of anything that would contradict the hypothesis, then ANY data will have exactly zero value in judging its correctness.

Personally, I have looked at both for falsifying evidence as well as supporting evidence and find both lacking in both.

Which doesn't answer aisy's question.

 

[razzelflabben]

Yes, to falsify a hypothesis you have to know what falsifies it. But you also have to know that in order to verify a hypothesis. If you don't know of anything that would contradict the hypothesis, then ANY data will have exactly zero value in judging its correctness.

right, now consider what I have said here and asked on many different creation/evolution debates, is, what does the story of creation actually tell us that we can scientifically test for. You see, few if anyone is willing to discover what the text says, instead both sides want to only talk about thier own bias. We can test for what it tells us, but only when we know what it actually says. Take the discussion to point about the flood. The text allows for either universal or massive local flood, but good luck getting anyone to discuss which if either is possible in science because we're too busy going around proving each other wrong to listen and hear and test for what we do know.

I got one person on these boards to agree to look at the text with me, to determine what was the given and what was personal beliefs from individuals. We never got past the first verse because the other poster insisted on putting things into the text that were not there in the first place. Until we take the time to identify what the consistants are (in this case, the theory of creation not ID comes from scripture) we cannot hope to test because we don't know what we are testing for. Unfortunately, history tells me that if I insist on talking only about what the text says or doesn't say, I will be in a life long discussion trying to get people to stop making assumptions and actually look at the text. Which is the root of my insistance that the venom be dropped, the preconceived notions, and we actually deal with the absolutes of the theory, the consistants.

Which doesn't answer aisy's question.

which question wasn't answered? If I understand you right, the answer you think wasn't given was specified in greater detail more than once.

 

[Naraoia]

We can test for what [the creation story] tells us, but only when we know what it actually says.

In an ideal world, I completely agree.

Take the discussion to point about the flood. The text allows for either universal or massive local flood, but good luck getting anyone to discuss which if either is possible in science because we're too busy going around proving each other wrong to listen and hear and test for what we do know.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. As far as I can tell, the scientific impossibility of a global flood (and the lack of evidence for one) is discussed all the time, and the evolution side acknowledges that massive local floods can and do happen (depends on what "massive" and "local" mean, of course). What's the problem, again?

I got one person on these boards to agree to look at the text with me, to determine what was the given and what was personal beliefs from individuals. We never got past the first verse because the other poster insisted on putting things into the text that were not there in the first place. Until we take the time to identify what the consistants are (in this case, the theory of creation not ID comes from scripture) we cannot hope to test because we don't know what we are testing for.

Yes, but everyone (including you) has their interpretation of the text. I would hope that everyone (including you) could scrape together some ideas about testing that particular interpretation. There may not be an objective way of deciding what Biblical stories really say, but we can still work with interpretations that people believe to be right.

Unfortunately, history tells me that if I insist on talking only about what the text says or doesn't say, I will be in a life long discussion trying to get people to stop making assumptions and actually look at the text. Which is the root of my insistance that the venom be dropped, the preconceived notions, and we actually deal with the absolutes of the theory, the consistants.

Good luck with that... Seeing as even literalists don't seem to be able to agree on the absolutes of the theory, I don't know if dealing with the absolutes is even possible. I'm with you on the venom. I prefer civil and intelligent discussion to name calling.

which question wasn't answered?

This one:

Then, what would you expect to see if creation were not true? <- that's a question.

If I understand you right, the answer you think wasn't given was specified in greater detail more than once.

Quite possibly. I didn't read this whole discussion, and I didn't plan to reply, but the above question caught my attention because I'm interested in the answer. And then you didn't give one in your reply to post 102

 

[razzelflabben]

In an ideal world, I completely agree. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. As far as I can tell, the scientific impossibility of a global flood (and the lack of evidence for one) is discussed all the time, and the evolution side acknowledges that massive local floods can and do happen (depends on what "massive" and "local" mean, of course). What's the problem, again?

the biblical text does not specify whether the flood was global or massive local, therefore, "falsifying" a global flood does not falsify the biblical account of what happened. That is the point. When we discover what the text really says or in this case does not say, we can test, but until then, we can't. So the problem is that we dismiss what the account says because some people make assumptions, that is NOT scientific...

Yes, but everyone (including you) has their interpretation of the text.

as you have an interpretation of what I am writing here, as we both have an interpretation of what the constitution says, etc. But there are many ways to find out the intent of the author rather than the intent of the reader and that is the point.

I would hope that everyone (including you) could scrape together some ideas about testing that particular interpretation. There may not be an objective way of deciding what Biblical stories really say, but we can still work with interpretations that people believe to be right.

we can examine the text as we would Poe, or Shakesphere, or even Twain and from that evaluation determine the intent of the author not the assumptions of bias.

Good luck with that... Seeing as even literalists don't seem to be able to agree on the absolutes of the theory, I don't know if dealing with the absolutes is even possible. I'm with you on the venom. I prefer civil and intelligent discussion to name calling.

see above, we are discussing, right? We can look at the text and apply literary rules to determine what is intended just as we can do with anyone who is willing to look at the text and study it for what it says or doesn't say.

This one:

that depends on what the text says is an absolute. see above

Quite possibly. I didn't read this whole discussion, and I didn't plan to reply, but the above question caught my attention because I'm interested in the answer. And then you didn't give one in your reply to post 102

 

[Naraoia]

the biblical text does not specify whether the flood was global or massive local, therefore, "falsifying" a global flood does not falsify the biblical account of what happened. That is the point.

Thanks, that's much clearer now.

When we discover what the text really says or in this case does not say, we can test, but until then, we can't. So the problem is that we dismiss what the account says because some people make assumptions, that is NOT scientific...

Of course. I agree that it's not very scientific to declare that the Bible is wrong when you've only proven someone's interpretation wrong.

That said, I'm not sure how you could read, say, Genesis 6:11 onwards to make it not falsified. For example (I'm quoting the New International Version):

So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

and

I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.

and

You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.

This is just the bare text, and it clearly, explicitly says that God is going to destroy all life (except for those on the Ark), all people, all the earth. Furthermore, it clearly, explicitly says that Noah is to bring two of all living creatures with him. Unless you think that all life at the time was concentrated wherever Noah lived, the text explicitly contradicts a local flood (or did God lie to Noah?) - and the global flood hypothesis is as good as dead given the geological record. Unless you insert strange spacetime anomalies into the ark or impossibly fast evolution after the flood, the text explicitly contradicts the diversity of life that we observe on the planet.

as you have an interpretation of what I am writing here, as we both have an interpretation of what the constitution says, etc. But there are many ways to find out the intent of the author rather than the intent of the reader and that is the point. we can examine the text as we would Poe, or Shakesphere, or even Twain and from that evaluation determine the intent of the author not the assumptions of bias.

Yes, we can analyse the Bible like any other piece of literature, but I highly doubt we can ever be sure about the intent of the author. Works of literature are very difficult (I'd say impossible, but my experience is limited to literature classes at school) to interpret objectively. I agree that it's stupid to say the Bible is Wrong when you refute one particular interpretation, and I also agree that testing the Bible's claims requires knowing what they are. I'm just doubtful that the latter is completely possible (even with totally explicit claims like the ones I quoted above, what if the author meant them as exaggerations to make a point? Is there a way to know that?).

(Of course, all of that doesn't make putting interpretations in someone's mouth less wrong)

see above, we are discussing, right?

Yes, and it's fun.

We can look at the text and apply literary rules to determine what is intended just as we can do with anyone who is willing to look at the text and study it for what it says or doesn't say.

I suppose we can - how about you show me what you (or scholars) can determine about Genesis 6?

that depends on what the text says is an absolute. see above

What you are saying, then, is that so long as you don't know what the text says, creation is an untestable hypothesis.

Still, what would you expect based on your interpretation? Sure you can give a specific example of that?

 

[razzelflabben]

Thanks, that's much clearer now.

Of course. I agree that it's not very scientific to declare that the Bible is wrong when you've only proven someone's interpretation wrong.

That said, I'm not sure how you could read, say, Genesis 6:11 onwards to make it not falsified. For example (I'm quoting the New International Version):
and
and
This is just the bare text, and it clearly, explicitly says that God is going to destroy all life (except for those on the Ark), all people, all the earth. Furthermore, it clearly, explicitly says that Noah is to bring two of all living creatures with him. Unless you think that all life at the time was concentrated wherever Noah lived, the text explicitly contradicts a local flood (or did God lie to Noah?) - and the global flood hypothesis is as good as dead given the geological record. Unless you insert strange spacetime anomalies into the ark or impossibly fast evolution after the flood, the text explicitly contradicts the diversity of life that we observe on the planet.

well, again we're back to flood theory not creation theory, but let's review what we have learned so far...According to the text, Noah is the 10th generation of man, that makes the number pretty small, anywhere from a few thousand to a few 10 thousands in the population at the time...the 10thousands mostly removing death which we know was happening at the time. We further know from the text that the people of the time were wearing clothing, that takes us to civilization. So what we are really talking about here is a few thousand people all located in the "fertile creasent" of which we know from science does flood and floods often and bad. The scientific data we collect also tells us that with more modern equipment, floods have in modern times been known to wipe out that many people in one flood. So the possibles to date are yes, it is possible

Now you brought up another claim we didn't get to discuss yet, that of all the animals. According to the text, God brought the animals to Noah, not Noah going out and collecting the animals. Therefore, it is not necessary from the text to maintain a local only animal diversity, though we can test for it, it is another non specific.

You see, many people try to read Gen. as if it is a scientific treatise of which they must either believe or not believe based on prejudice and bias. Instead what we see is that it is not written as a scientific treatise at all, but rather a polimic, with some wonderful twists and turns. Basically what this means is that we can test the absolutes for accuracy, but we dare not read into it what is not intended. In other words, we dare not read it as a scientific treatise when it is intended to be a polimic.

Yes, we can analyse the Bible like any other piece of literature, but I highly doubt we can ever be sure about the intent of the author.

don't be too sure...we can be as sure as we are with any other work...take the constitution of the US for example. We can know what the intent was, but we can also manipulate that intent to justify our own biases and desires. they are two different things.

Works of literature are very difficult (I'd say impossible, but my experience is limited to literature classes at school) to interpret objectively.

difficult and impossible are two different things.

I agree that it's stupid to say the Bible is Wrong when you refute one particular interpretation, and I also agree that testing the Bible's claims requires knowing what they are. I'm just doubtful that the latter is completely possible (even with totally explicit claims like the ones I quoted above, what if the author meant them as exaggerations to make a point? Is there a way to know that?).

absolutely there are ways to know...there are a lot of ways to "investigate" a text to determine it's intent...completely possible, not sure what you mean by that, what I can tell you is that just like in science, we can draw logical conclusions based on the rules of evaluation. Not everyone will agree on the conclusions, just like in science, obviously not everyone agrees on the conclusions that doesn't make the logical conclusion wrong just because there are a group that doesn't believe the answer.

(Of course, all of that doesn't make putting interpretations in someone's mouth less wrong)

amen

Yes, and it's fun.

I suppose we can - how about you show me what you (or scholars) can determine about Genesis 6?

dare we? it's off topic....I've been in trouble before for allowing discussions to drift "off topic"...

What you are saying, then, is that so long as you don't know what the text says, creation is an untestable hypothesis.

sort of, not exactly...what I am saying is that we can test for any fringe or mainstream understanding that lays out specifics to test but what we can't do is attach all those different theories to anyone who believes creation and/or the original text and what it says. The conclusions of those varying beliefs, must be limited to the varying beliefs.

For this reason, if let's say I tell you that I believe that the bible does not test to be scientifically falsified, then you cannot assume that I am young earth, global flood, etc. because those are not specified in the text. I could if those were my beliefs, justify them according to the text, that is human nature, but I could not evidence them in the text because that like science requires a series of rules that result in a logical conclusion that was not done to come to the bias of the one speeking. Hope that makes sense, if we were talking face to face it would be so much easier to explain....

Still, what would you expect based on your interpretation? Sure you can give a specific example of that?

Okay, let me see, let's look at the first verse usually used in creation theory... 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

We do not know from this text, when the beginning is...consider other biblical references tell us that God is eternal we can logically conclude this is not refering to God's beginning. But beyond that we can't be sure...We begin with heaven and earth being created but how they were created (and later in the text we see that they were not created as we now know them) is a mystery. The only thing we can be sure of in this part of the text is that 1. the creation of heaven and earth is where the story begins (compare this to the theory of evolution that does not include where the single cell population comes from...we get to clarify where the story begins...and 2. that God did the creating. At this point, there is no mention of how or even why that creation took place.

Therefore any reading into the text is would not allow us to test for what the text says, but rather what bias allows. Before we move on, let's touch on one more thing...if this were intended to be a scientific treatise, we would expect the text to give us the experiments, the mechanism, etc. we see non of that here, therefore we can conclude that the first verse of the text gives us no reason to believe that the authors intent is to write a scientific paper here, but we can keep testing and see if that conclusion is falsified later.

So what can we in vs. one test for? Not much, the one thing we can test for is the existance of a supernatural being who created. Being that science tests for createdness all the time, that shouldn't be hard.

 

[Naraoia]

well, again we're back to flood theory not creation theory, but let's review what we have learned so far...

Sorry You mentioned the flood, and I remembered reading things in the flood story that looked pretty explicitly against everything we know from science.

According to the text, Noah is the 10th generation of man, that makes the number pretty small, anywhere from a few thousand to a few 10 thousands in the population at the time...the 10thousands mostly removing death which we know was happening at the time. We further know from the text that the people of the time were wearing clothing, that takes us to civilization. So what we are really talking about here is a few thousand people all located in the "fertile creasent" of which we know from science does flood and floods often and bad.

No, not if we are talking about civilisation (and we clearly are, not just from the clothes but from the fact that already the sons of Adam & Eve grew crops and raised domestic animals*). At the time "civilisation" first arose in the Fertile Crescent, people were already living all over the globe. "All" people will have to include those in Africa, China, Australia, the Americas - everywhere. (As an aside, that makes it seem unlikely that Noah was really the tenth generation.)

*Incidentally, that makes it doubtful that the story of Adam and Eve as the first humans is correct, since the first modern humans were hunter-gatherers.

The scientific data we collect also tells us that with more modern equipment, floods have in modern times been known to wipe out that many people in one flood. So the possibles to date are yes, it is possible

I don't doubt that floods can be devastating, but I still maintain that Genesis talks about a global flood.

Now you brought up another claim we didn't get to discuss yet, that of all the animals. According to the text, God brought the animals to Noah, not Noah going out and collecting the animals. Therefore, it is not necessary from the text to maintain a local only animal diversity, though we can test for it, it is another non specific.

The main issue is not distance but biodiversity and genetic diversity.

Biodiversity: IIRC, there are well over a million currently described animal species (and a further few hundred thousand plants) on this planet, and even the most conservative estimates put the actual number of living species at twice or three times that. There's no reason that I know of to assume that the situation was any different in Noah's time. With millions of animals (and only 8 people tending them), there are going to be space, sanitation, food and habitat issues (many creatures are pretty fussy about both of the latter). You can't discount aquatic creatures (some of which are, as you know, huge), since aquatic creatures tend to be sensitive to changes in salinity and temperature. (Not to mention that they are certainly included in "all living things")

Genetic diversity: We agree that Noah's times were already civilised times. Now, based on archaeological evidence, that limits the earliest time Noah's flood could have occurred at a few thousand years BC. That means a very recent and very severe genetic bottleneck for every living thing on earth. That, TMK, is not something we see in real populations.

don't be too sure...we can be as sure as we are with any other work...take the constitution of the US for example.

A constitution is a legal document. It's meant to be clear and explicit. The Bible contains a lot of poetry. IMHO it's much more difficult to find the "correct" interpretation for poetry.

difficult and impossible are two different things. absolutely there are ways to know...there are a lot of ways to "investigate" a text to determine it's intent...completely possible, not sure what you mean by that,

I mean that the correct interpretation may not be possible to find for all verses.

what I can tell you is that just like in science, we can draw logical conclusions based on the rules of evaluation. Not everyone will agree on the conclusions, just like in science, obviously not everyone agrees on the conclusions that doesn't make the logical conclusion wrong just because there are a group that doesn't believe the answer.

dare we? it's off topic....I've been in trouble before for allowing discussions to drift "off topic"...

One thing is certain: I won't report you Besides, it's not really off topic so long as we can relate it to the actual science of creation vs. evolution.

sort of, not exactly...what I am saying is that we can test for any fringe or mainstream understanding that lays out specifics to test but what we can't do is attach all those different theories to anyone who believes creation and/or the original text and what it says. The conclusions of those varying beliefs, must be limited to the varying beliefs.

I see, and I agree.

For this reason, if let's say I tell you that I believe that the bible does not test to be scientifically falsified, then you cannot assume that I am young earth, global flood, etc. because those are not specified in the text. I could if those were my beliefs, justify them according to the text, that is human nature, but I could not evidence them in the text because that like science requires a series of rules that result in a logical conclusion that was not done to come to the bias of the one speeking. Hope that makes sense, if we were talking face to face it would be so much easier to explain....

It makes sense, I think.

Okay, let me see, let's look at the first verse usually used in creation theory... 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

We do not know from this text, when the beginning is...consider other biblical references tell us that God is eternal we can logically conclude this is not refering to God's beginning. But beyond that we can't be sure...We begin with heaven and earth being created but how they were created (and later in the text we see that they were not created as we now know them) is a mystery. The only thing we can be sure of in this part of the text is that 1. the creation of heaven and earth is where the story begins (compare this to the theory of evolution that does not include where the single cell population comes from...we get to clarify where the story begins...and 2. that God did the creating. At this point, there is no mention of how or even why that creation took place.

Therefore any reading into the text is would not allow us to test for what the text says, but rather what bias allows. Before we move on, let's touch on one more thing...if this were intended to be a scientific treatise, we would expect the text to give us the experiments, the mechanism, etc. we see non of that here, therefore we can conclude that the first verse of the text gives us no reason to believe that the authors intent is to write a scientific paper here, but we can keep testing and see if that conclusion is falsified later.

Yep, that makes perfect sense. On the second point: "science" has a very specific meaning in use today, and I think it might be misleading to argue whether a story in the Bible is a scientific treatise in that sense. The important thing is not whether it's a scientific treatise in the modern sense of the word, but whether it is meant as a factual description of reality.

So what can we in vs. one test for? Not much, the one thing we can test for is the existance of a supernatural being who created.

How?

Being that science tests for createdness all the time, that shouldn't be hard.

Could you explain what you mean there in a bit more detail? What specific kinds of research involve testing for createdness? (I could think of examples, but I'd like to know what you have in mind.)

 

[razzelflabben]

Sorry You mentioned the flood, and I remembered reading things in the flood story that looked pretty explicitly against everything we know from science.

it's already being discussed here, so present a few...

No, not if we are talking about civilisation (and we clearly are, not just from the clothes but from the fact that already the sons of Adam & Eve grew crops and raised domestic animals*). At the time "civilisation" first arose in the Fertile Crescent, people were already living all over the globe. "All" people will have to include those in Africa, China, Australia, the Americas - everywhere. (As an aside, that makes it seem unlikely that Noah was really the tenth generation.)

check it out, in fact, in one of my posts I included several different websites that show that the "seat" or beginnings of civilization are without question the fertile crescent, where as the other "people populations" were not listen among the civilization populations and in face, many even question whether or not they truely were humans as per the definition we must consider according to the text.

As to the 10th generation, we can only look at the evidence. If Noah was either the 10th generation of actual people as in civilization and not skeletal portions that we want to consider people (keep in mind that even evolutionists use this question of whether or not they were really people to support the objections of creationists or 2.if Noah was the 10th generation of civilizated people is really irrelavent to the possibles.

Consider this, if man developed throughtout the world, each group of man developing from a different single celled population, then what role does speciation, survival of the fitest, etc. have on the evolution of life?

Bottom line, no matter how you slice it, the story stands as stated in gen. as possible according to the scientific data available. When we try to force the data into falsifying the text, we end up with an evolutionary problem we didn't intend.

The text specifies 10th generation of civilized man and that senerio leaves us with yes, it is possible.

*Incidentally, that makes it doubtful that the story of Adam and Eve as the first humans is correct, since the first modern humans were hunter-gatherers.

well, that is still scientifically open for debate. of the identified populations outside the fertile crescant, we see that we are looking at the "uncivilized" as in no modern amenities as in cultivated farming, herding, etc. These features are omited from those populations, look back in the posts and review some of the evidence. Wikipedia is also a good source, you do need to look into it though, they don't just put it as forward as I am here.

I don't doubt that floods can be devastating, but I still maintain that Genesis talks about a global flood.

but a careful look at the text shows that it is not specified, therefore both are possibles according to the text, not according to traditional understandings. You see, what you think, or what I think doesn't matter, what matters is what the text specifies and you can try, but I have yet to find any text that specifies global and that includes the greek.

The main issue is not distance but biodiversity and genetic diversity.

Biodiversity: IIRC, there are well over a million currently described animal species (and a further few hundred thousand plants) on this planet, and even the most conservative estimates put the actual number of living species at twice or three times that. There's no reason that I know of to assume that the situation was any different in Noah's time. With millions of animals (and only 8 people tending them), there are going to be space, sanitation, food and habitat issues (many creatures are pretty fussy about both of the latter). You can't discount aquatic creatures (some of which are, as you know, huge), since aquatic creatures tend to be sensitive to changes in salinity and temperature. (Not to mention that they are certainly included in "all living things")

not a problem from the textual point of view...consider this, IF (not saying the evidence is conclusive here, saying IF) God did destroy all of mankind but 8 people. and IF He brought the animals that were necessary onto the ark, you still have two very real possibles to experiment on and both are possibles according to the scientific evidence 1. for the time the life was confined to the ark, God was intervening, I mean, IF God can call all the animals together, He can certainly make them able to survive the ark...so to test for this possible we need to go to populations, and see if populations all are tracable back to one population or many...the newest scientific evidence says that all life is tracable back to several single celled populations...this evidence would then support the idea that at one point in the history of life, Noah could have conceivable had all species on the ark. or 2. speciation. Gen itself predicts that life will change...it will develop characteristics that change and flow and yet are identical to it's parents. So, we could also include in the possibles of the Gen. flood account that evolution is possible. This means that Noah could have had fewer than currently listen animals and life still could be diversed as we see today...remember, according to the text, this is the 10th generation of mankind, lots of evolution happened between the 10th generation of man and today...So to try to falsify the flood based on the above is to try to falsify the TOE based on the above.

Genetic diversity: We agree that Noah's times were already civilised times. Now, based on archaeological evidence, that limits the earliest time Noah's flood could have occurred at a few thousand years BC. That means a very recent and very severe genetic bottleneck for every living thing on earth. That, TMK, is not something we see in real populations.

well, to this point, we haven't been able to look at the evidence of bottleneck, no one wants to deal with the other possibles, so let's look at bottlenecks...as mentioned above, the modern evidence supports several single celled populations which would suggest that a "few" surviving species that evolved is possible but let's look deeper at what is possible...Population bottleneck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Small population size - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Population Bottleneck Species Toba Size Genetic Theory Human
Population bottleneck: Definition from Answers.com

which is enough for the moment, two things of interest, one, it is possible, and all point back to a similar time period and two, more research is needed.

A constitution is a legal document. It's meant to be clear and explicit. The Bible contains a lot of poetry. IMHO it's much more difficult to find the "correct" interpretation for poetry.

it also includes polemics, historical records, prophecy, parable, etc. each is read differently, for different purposes, but each follows specific rules, just as science does.[/quote]

I mean that the correct interpretation may not be possible to find for all verses.[/quote] I bet with the proper rules being followed you'll find fewer than a handful that can't be correctly interpreted.

One thing is certain: I won't report you Besides, it's not really off topic so long as we can relate it to the actual science of creation vs. evolution.

yeah it can be, in fact I got reported for one that was related, but hey, no worries from me, remind me what you wanted opinions on, or we can talk about it somewhere else so as not to get too long of posts, like PM or something.

I see, and I agree.

It makes sense, I think.

Yep, that makes perfect sense. On the second point: "science" has a very specific meaning in use today, and I think it might be misleading to argue whether a story in the Bible is a scientific treatise in that sense. The important thing is not whether it's a scientific treatise in the modern sense of the word, but whether it is meant as a factual description of reality.

and that answer should, lead us to a specific understanding of how to use the belief/theory that generates from it.

How?

testing for the supernatural in a natural world requires two things, 1.it requires that the supernatural touches the natural...we can only test the natural world, so if the supernatural does not interact with the natural, science simply can't test for it. and 2. we must know what the supernatural claims as evidence of his interaction. Without knowing what the given supernatural claims, we simply don't know what we should predict.

Could you explain what you mean there in a bit more detail? What specific kinds of research involve testing for createdness? (I could think of examples, but I'd like to know what you have in mind.)

Not sure exactly what you question is, so I'll give it a shot and if I miss, just ask again with some specifics. When we find something in this world, we must determine if it was manmade or environmental. Take some of our rock formations for example. Once we determine 'WHO' made it, we can then test it. Creation is similar. We can test for createdness, and from that, further test what it is and how it got here. Let me see, another example....a year or so ago, we went to the serpant mound here in ohio. As we read the information on the mound, we discovered that the first thing that had to be determined before other research was accomplished was whether or not the mound was a natural phenom.. or manmade. The research still continues, so does the controversies of what the intend was, what is not questioned is the createdness of the structure. We can do the same for life, using the same kinds of techniques. It's really more about consistancies than anything else. If science can test for createdness, then it can test life for createdness. If science can test for influences on the natural world, then it can test for supernatural influences on that natural world....

 

[Naraoia]

it's already being discussed here, so present a few...

A few what?

check it out, in fact, in one of my posts I included several different websites that show that the "seat" or beginnings of civilization are without question the fertile crescent,

And, independently, somewhere in America (where corn was domesticated more than 10k years ago)

where as the other "people populations" were not listen among the civilization populations and in face, many even question whether or not they truely were humans as per the definition we must consider according to the text.

What definition must we consider according to the text? Does the Bible ever, anywhere, define "people", or even imply a definition that doesn't include all members of H. sapiens?

In any case, the passages I quoted do not only talk about all people. There's also all of the earth.

As to the 10th generation, we can only look at the evidence. If Noah was either the 10th generation of actual people as in civilization and not skeletal portions that we want to consider people (keep in mind that even evolutionists use this question of whether or not they were really people to support the objections of creationists

No, evolutionists don't question, to my knowledge, whether any specimen of H. sapiens is a person. The issue only gets tricky when we get to other species of Homo. The earliest appearance of our species precedes civilisation by almost 200k years, and the great "cultural revolution" of the stone age is also way before the first civilisations.

If we are looking for authorial intent, and there isn't a Biblical definition that specifically excludes "uncivilised" people from being people (is there one?), maybe we should take a look at the contemporary default definition (which I don't know). If there's no reason to assume that the text uses a restrictive definition, then allowing for that possibility is wishful thinking more than anything else.

or 2.if Noah was the 10th generation of civilizated people is really irrelavent to the possibles.

Consider this, if man developed throughtout the world, each group of man developing from a different single celled population, then what role does speciation, survival of the fitest, etc. have on the evolution of life?

I don't understand the question. And nobody (well, nobody in their right minds) says that different groups of man developed from different single-celled populations.

Bottom line, no matter how you slice it, the story stands as stated in gen. as possible according to the scientific data available. When we try to force the data into falsifying the text, we end up with an evolutionary problem we didn't intend.

And when you try to stretch the text to fit the data, you end up with the same problem you're trying to avoid.

The text specifies 10th generation of civilized man

Where?

well, that is still scientifically open for debate. of the identified populations outside the fertile crescant, we see that we are looking at the "uncivilized" as in no modern amenities as in cultivated farming, herding, etc. These features are omited from those populations, look back in the posts and review some of the evidence.

In which posts?

Wikipedia is also a good source, you do need to look into it though, they don't just put it as forward as I am here. but a careful look at the text shows that it is not specified, therefore both are possibles according to the text, not according to traditional understandings.

The question is authorial intent. Both are possibles, but are both plausibles?

You see, what you think, or what I think doesn't matter, what matters is what the text specifies and you can try, but I have yet to find any text that specifies global and that includes the greek.

Greek? Why not Hebrew, then? (BTW, I'd love to be able to read the original... unfortunately, English is the only foreign language I know to a decent degree.)

In any case, I still see no way you could interpret the event implied in 6:17 as local. What does the original say there?

not a problem from the textual point of view...consider this, IF (not saying the evidence is conclusive here, saying IF) God did destroy all of mankind but 8 people. and IF He brought the animals that were necessary onto the ark, you still have two very real possibles to experiment on and both are possibles according to the scientific evidence 1. for the time the life was confined to the ark, God was intervening, I mean, IF God can call all the animals together, He can certainly make them able to survive the ark...

And that's where you make Biblical accounts utterly unfalsifiable regardless of authorial intent. Since the almighty God could've done anything between the lines, it doesn't really matter what the Bible really says - what it leaves unsaid can solve every clash with physical evidence.

so to test for this possible we need to go to populations, and see if populations all are tracable back to one population or many...the newest scientific evidence says that all life is tracable back to several single celled populations...this evidence would then support the idea that at one point in the history of life, Noah could have conceivable had all species on the ark.

Yup, and at that point in the history of life, humans didn't exist.

or 2. speciation. Gen itself predicts that life will change...it will develop characteristics that change and flow and yet are identical to it's parents.

Really? Chapter and verse please.

So, we could also include in the possibles of the Gen. flood account that evolution is possible. This means that Noah could have had fewer than currently listen animals and life still could be diversed as we see today...remember, according to the text, this is the 10th generation of mankind, lots of evolution happened between the 10th generation of man and today...

In the second fastest speciating organisms known to science (the Laupala crickets of Hawaii), the highest estimated speciation rate is slightly over 4 species per million years, and this, according to the short article I linked, is 26 times faster than the normal rate for arthropods. Speciation doesn't (usually) happen overnight.

Incidentally, this is the kind of study that clearly shows that the most recent common ancestors of even very closely related living species are usually pretty far back by human reckoning. Either something miraculous happened to evolution in the time since the flood, confusing the molecular estimates (but no way they could confuse fossil/archaeological evidence!), or pretty much all modern biodiversity had to be stuffed into the ark.

So to try to falsify the flood based on the above is to try to falsify the TOE based on the above. well, to this point, we haven't been able to look at the evidence of bottleneck, no one wants to deal with the other possibles, so let's look at bottlenecks...as mentioned above, the modern evidence supports several single celled populations which would suggest that a "few" surviving species that evolved is possible

Um, as I said, those single celled ancestors lived billions of years ago... and, unfortunately, the life forms between those ancestors and extant organisms are often solidly dated by radioisotope methods (or a combination of that and relative dating techniques). Most of them lived before the dawn of civilisation, anyway.

but let's look deeper at what is possible...Population bottleneck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Small population size - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Population Bottleneck Species Toba Size Genetic Theory Human
Population bottleneck: Definition from Answers.com

Can you paraphrase/quote the specific pieces of information that you find relevant to the argument? I'm sorry, I'm not going to read all of that in order to find (or fail to find) the two sentences that you thought supported your point.

and that answer should, lead us to a specific understanding of how to use the belief/theory that generates from it.

And if the Bible was never meant as a factual description of reality, then whether a story in it is "true" is not an issue

testing for the supernatural in a natural world requires two things, 1.it requires that the supernatural touches the natural...we can only test the natural world, so if the supernatural does not interact with the natural, science simply can't test for it.

So far, agreed. The Biblical God, at least, fulfils this criterion.

and 2. we must know what the supernatural claims as evidence of his interaction. Without knowing what the given supernatural claims, we simply don't know what we should predict.

Yes, yes, I completely agree... so what does it claim, and how can we test it? That's what I've been trying to pull out of you all this time

Not sure exactly what you question is, so I'll give it a shot and if I miss, just ask again with some specifics. When we find something in this world, we must determine if it was manmade or environmental.

So far, this is just paraphrasing what you said, not an example.

Take some of our rock formations for example. Once we determine 'WHO' made it, we can then test it.

That was actually an example I didn't think of, but I see what you mean. Just a hole in the hill, or a prehistoric quarry?

Creation is similar. We can test for createdness, and from that, further test what it is and how it got here.

How?

Sorry, I seem to use that question a lot, but I'm a science student, and I like to think in specifics. An example to illustrate what I mean by "specifics" from one of my pet topics, evolutionary developmental biology:

There's an idea that embryonic development can determine or constrain how creatures evolve. For example, two or more traits can be developmentally linked so that some combinations of traits are not possible.

So here's a hypothesis to test: the sizes of the front and hind eyespots on the wings of a butterfly are such linked traits. The size of one eyespot determines the other.

And here's how you test it: you try to see if the eyespots can evolve independently. You breed butterflies selectively. If the hypothesis is correct, eyespots should only be able to change size in the same direction: if you select for larger front and smaller hind eyespots or vice versa, you won't get anywhere.

Do you see what I mean? Basically, when I ask you how something could be tested, I'm hoping for slightly more than "you could look at it and tell". In the case of createdness, I'm hoping for something like a concrete property that's found in most created things and not found in most non-created things.

(BTW, the hypothesis doesn't hold for real butterflies on which this research has been done - the two eyespots can evolve in opposite directions under appropriate selective pressure. That's not the point, but here's a free paper if you are interested in the real research that my example is based on.)

Let me see, another example....a year or so ago, we went to the serpant mound here in ohio. As we read the information on the mound, we discovered that the first thing that had to be determined before other research was accomplished was whether or not the mound was a natural phenom.. or manmade. The research still continues, so does the controversies of what the intend was, what is not questioned is the createdness of the structure. We can do the same for life, using the same kinds of techniques. It's really more about consistancies than anything else. If science can test for createdness, then it can test life for createdness. If science can test for influences on the natural world, then it can test for supernatural influences on that natural world....

I don't know if you realise, but you are just restating what you've already stated - that science can test for createdness. Nowhere have you described a method. (But I hope I already explained what I'm hoping for above.)

But let me tell you why I think testing life for createdness may be more difficult than you think.

The main reason is lack of comparison.

Maybe we can tell if something is man-made or not, but that's because we have a huge number of clearly man-made and clearly non-man-made objects, so we can deduce some general properties of "manmadeness" missing from non-man-made objects (and that's assuming that there's more involved than just "gee, this looks a lot like man-made object X").

However, we can't generalise that knowledge to all created objects. Why? Because there's only one kind of creator we know for certain - ourselves. Generalising from that would be like saying all cars are white because you've only ever seen a single car and that was white. To add to the problem, the creator you're trying to generalise to is a supernatural being far beyond human understanding. There's no reason its creations should have the same properties that man-made objects do.

Furthermore, since we are dealing with the possibility that the whole universe was created by this being, we don't have anything that we know to be non-created.

This is why I'm doubtful that createdness can really be tested for: I don't think we have enough information to make good predictions.

 

[razzelflabben]

A few what?

And, independently, somewhere in America (where corn was domesticated more than 10k years ago)

do the research, science does not question where civilization began. If we use that evidence, calculate the probable population, the evidence shows that the account of the flood in Gen. is indeed possible.

What definition must we consider according to the text? Does the Bible ever, anywhere, define "people", or even imply a definition that doesn't include all members of H. sapiens?

absolutely, it talks about people wearing clothing, cultivating, working with tools, iron, etc. As well as hunting and growing crops. The qualifications of biblical "people" is without doubt limited to civilization of which science says started in the fertile crescent.

In any case, the passages I quoted do not only talk about all people. There's also all of the earth.

no, not really, look at the passage again...

No, evolutionists don't question, to my knowledge, whether any specimen of H. sapiens is a person. The issue only gets tricky when we get to other species of Homo. The earliest appearance of our species precedes civilisation by almost 200k years, and the great "cultural revolution" of the stone age is also way before the first civilisations.

and the bible specifies that people were civilized, therefore taking us squarely to the fertile crescant, the rest of this discussion is meaningless in that you and I are talking past each other on the topic, and doesn't influence the outcome even if we weren't talking past one another.

If we are looking for authorial intent, and there isn't a Biblical definition that specifically excludes "uncivilised" people from being people (is there one?), maybe we should take a look at the contemporary default definition (which I don't know). If there's no reason to assume that the text uses a restrictive definition, then allowing for that possibility is wishful thinking more than anything else.

see above...it's pretty specific...

I don't understand the question. And nobody (well, nobody in their right minds) says that different groups of man developed from different single-celled populations.

awesome, so then what we have is each different single celled population only developing through it's own strains, just as the creation story tells us...hummm, so we have evidence to support the story of creation...interesting concept....

And when you try to stretch the text to fit the data, you end up with the same problem you're trying to avoid.

whose trying to stretch the text, I am trying to hold us to the text.

Where?

In which posts?

The question is authorial intent. Both are possibles, but are both plausibles?

from the current scientific evidence, I would have to say, yes, without contest, both are currently plausible.

Greek? Why not Hebrew, then? (BTW, I'd love to be able to read the original... unfortunately, English is the only foreign language I know to a decent degree.)

the old testament is Hebrew, the new testament Greek, I stated it backward, sorry, my bad....my husband studied both as well there are lots of study aids.[/quote]

In any case, I still see no way you could interpret the event implied in 6:17 as local. What does the original say there?[/quote]Here is the cut and paste of the passage in question...
Genesis 6:17 (New International Version)

17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.


now please highlight for us the part that specified a world wide flood, because I still don't see it, only the part about destruction of life...of which we already looked at biblically and scientifically could very easily be a localized event. Even though you don't want to accept it.

And that's where you make Biblical accounts utterly unfalsifiable regardless of authorial intent. Since the almighty God could've done anything between the lines, it doesn't really matter what the Bible really says - what it leaves unsaid can solve every clash with physical evidence.

so once again, the issue of God of the gaps is brought up by someone who claims that the arguement is flawed??? What is the point of bringing up god of the gaps here? I really don't get why so many evolutionists love the god of the gaps theory, personally I find it to be a very disturbing arguement of which I have no use...

Yup, and at that point in the history of life, humans didn't exist.

Really? Chapter and verse please.

In the second fastest speciating organisms known to science (the Laupala crickets of Hawaii), the highest estimated speciation rate is slightly over 4 species per million years, and this, according to the short article I linked, is 26 times faster than the normal rate for arthropods. Speciation doesn't (usually) happen overnight.

who said it did????? Man am I confused as to what you think is being said...

Incidentally, this is the kind of study that clearly shows that the most recent common ancestors of even very closely related living species are usually pretty far back by human reckoning. Either something miraculous happened to evolution in the time since the flood, confusing the molecular estimates (but no way they could confuse fossil/archaeological evidence!), or pretty much all modern biodiversity had to be stuffed into the ark.

Um, as I said, those single celled ancestors lived billions of years ago... and, unfortunately, the life forms between those ancestors and extant organisms are often solidly dated by radioisotope methods (or a combination of that and relative dating techniques). Most of them lived before the dawn of civilisation, anyway.

not sure what you think your arguing here, I'll just listen to you go on for a while and maybe it will start making some sense as to what you think you are discussing.

Can you paraphrase/quote the specific pieces of information that you find relevant to the argument? I'm sorry, I'm not going to read all of that in order to find (or fail to find) the two sentences that you thought supported your point.

And if the Bible was never meant as a factual description of reality, then whether a story in it is "true" is not an issue

humm, more not following the discussion, I never said, nor suggested the biblical account was not factual, only that it was not written as a scientific treatise and therefore should not be treated as one.

So far, agreed. The Biblical God, at least, fulfils this criterion.

Yes, yes, I completely agree... so what does it claim, and how can we test it? That's what I've been trying to pull out of you all this time

change what I started to write to a more gentle approach, it's been a tough week....What do you want to "drag" out of me? Any supernatural being that interacts with the natural world will leave a mark. That mark can be tested and explored, and tested again and if it is found to be identical to the claims of the supernatural being explored, it is evidence of and for the existance of that supernatural if not, it falsifies it.

Let's take the Gen. account of creation as an example. If we use the rules of literature to evaluate the text, we see that it is not intended to be a scientific paper, but rather a well crafted argument for why the other gods of the day are not possibly gods. The claims of the other gods, then are shown by reason and natural observations of this world to be falsified gods. That is how we should evaluate all claims of supernatural.

So far, this is just paraphrasing what you said, not an example.

That was actually an example I didn't think of, but I see what you mean. Just a hole in the hill, or a prehistoric quarry?

How?

Sorry, I seem to use that question a lot, but I'm a science student, and I like to think in specifics. An example to illustrate what I mean by "specifics" from one of my pet topics, evolutionary developmental biology:

There's an idea that embryonic development can determine or constrain how creatures evolve. For example, two or more traits can be developmentally linked so that some combinations of traits are not possible.

So here's a hypothesis to test: the sizes of the front and hind eyespots on the wings of a butterfly are such linked traits. The size of one eyespot determines the other.

And here's how you test it: you try to see if the eyespots can evolve independently. You breed butterflies selectively. If the hypothesis is correct, eyespots should only be able to change size in the same direction: if you select for larger front and smaller hind eyespots or vice versa, you won't get anywhere.

Do you see what I mean? Basically, when I ask you how something could be tested, I'm hoping for slightly more than "you could look at it and tell". In the case of createdness, I'm hoping for something like a concrete property that's found in most created things and not found in most non-created things.

well, I tried this on another thread and no one could agree on what criteria is used to test for createdness. So let's try your specifics this way...when we look at a rock formation, what tells us if it is a created structure, or a man made structure?

(BTW, the hypothesis doesn't hold for real butterflies on which this research has been done - the two eyespots can evolve in opposite directions under appropriate selective pressure. That's not the point, but here's a free paper if you are interested in the real research that my example is based on.)

I don't know if you realise, but you are just restating what you've already stated - that science can test for createdness. Nowhere have you described a method. (But I hope I already explained what I'm hoping for above.)

I know I'm just restating, history says that you aren't going to deal with the issue.

But let me tell you why I think testing life for createdness may be more difficult than you think.

The main reason is lack of comparison.

Maybe we can tell if something is man-made or not, but that's because we have a huge number of clearly man-made and clearly non-man-made objects, so we can deduce some general properties of "manmadeness" missing from non-man-made objects (and that's assuming that there's more involved than just "gee, this looks a lot like man-made object X").

right, exactly, but each has similar characteristics, now list the characteristics that tell us what is man made and what is not...what tells us what is man made?

However, we can't generalise that knowledge to all created objects. Why? Because there's only one kind of creator we know for certain - ourselves. Generalising from that would be like saying all cars are white because you've only ever seen a single car and that was white. To add to the problem, the creator you're trying to generalise to is a supernatural being far beyond human understanding. There's no reason its creations should have the same properties that man-made objects do.

right, the supernatural creation would be bigger, broader, more perfect.

Furthermore, since we are dealing with the possibility that the whole universe was created by this being, we don't have anything that we know to be non-created.

we do if we find the criteria that identfies what is created from what is not created. Let's look at one of the first I explored even as a child. Something that is created, has a purpose...even if that purpose is to elisit the joy response, it has a purpose...so is there a purpose to the existance of life? I found a yes answer to that question.

This is why I'm doubtful that createdness can really be tested for: I don't think we have enough information to make good predictions.

I think your problem is that you expect everything to have a final conclusion not just exploration. Sometimes, we just don't have definate conclusions, you shouldn't fear this, it's part of life and science.

 

[DaisyDay]

Never mind, Naraoia is getting the answers I asked for.

 

[Naraoia]

Never mind, Naraoia is getting the answers I asked for.

Really? I didn´t realise I was getting any answers.

 

[razzelflabben]

Both of you received answers to the questions you asked, if you didn't find the answers you wanted, maybe we should rephrase the questions to be more specific as to what you are looking for.

 

[Naraoia]

do the research, science does not question where civilization began.

As you can see, I just did some research there

If we use that evidence, calculate the probable population, the evidence shows that the account of the flood in Gen. is indeed possible.

IF, as you claim, the text can talk about a local flood, AND uses "people" in a restrictive sense, which I still fail to see.

absolutely, it talks about people wearing clothing, cultivating, working with tools, iron, etc. As well as hunting and growing crops. The qualifications of biblical "people" is without doubt limited to civilization of which science says started in the fertile crescent.

The Bible talks about those kinds of people. Where does it imply that other kinds of people are not people? Not mentioning non-agricultural societies is not the same as implying they are not people.

awesome, so then what we have is each different single celled population only developing through it's own strains, just as the creation story tells us...hummm, so we have evidence to support the story of creation...interesting concept....

Huh? How did you get that from what I wrote?

whose trying to stretch the text, I am trying to hold us to the text.

You are trying to figure out what's possible based on the text. Now, the definition "people = agricultural societies" is certainly logically consistent with the text. That doesn't mean it's a plausible interpretation. I'm not necessarily saying that it isn't. I'm only saying that if the Bible doesn't really bother with defining people (and you haven't convinced me that it does), then the only plausible interpretations are those that involve the default definition for the cultural context of the stories. Anything else is twisting the meaning of the text, because if "people" meant something unconventional in Genesis, I'm pretty sure the author(s) would have said so.

from the current scientific evidence, I would have to say, yes, without contest, both are currently plausible. the old testament is Hebrew, the new testament Greek, I stated it backward, sorry, my bad....my husband studied both as well there are lots of study aids.

Great, then your husband could help us interpret the flood story!

now please highlight for us the part that specified a world wide flood, because I still don't see it, only the part about destruction of life...of which we already looked at biblically and scientifically could very easily be a localized event.

Except God brought everything that had to be kept alive to Noah. Where does it say that he also brought everything that didn't end up in the ark? (Yes, he could've done so. But if it's not implied in the text, we're getting into unfalsifiability territory again, and I thought we were trying to find testable claims in the Bible. More on that later...)

Not to mention that the text also explicitly says that "all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered [with flood waters]." Any geologist will probably tell you that the Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alps and various other mountains are a lot older than civilisation, so they had to be there during the time of Noah's flood. And if they were there, they had to be flooded, too... (Unless you also think "entire heavens" means something special here?)

so once again, the issue of God of the gaps is brought up by someone who claims that the arguement is flawed???

Far as I can tell, I didn't bring up a god of the gaps argument, but that's besides the point.

What is the point of bringing up god of the gaps here?

The point, razzelflabben, is that I thought we were discussing how we could tease out testable claims from Biblical text. If you allow that God could've done anything between the lines, you also allow that ANY evidence could be explained away by God doing something that isn't mentioned in the text. "Physical evidence contradits verse X? Why, God could've done Y to produce this evidence!"

And there goes testability out the window.

I really don't get why so many evolutionists love the god of the gaps theory, personally I find it to be a very disturbing arguement of which I have no use...

Good for you. I really don't get why you think evolutionists "love" god of the gaps theory. In my experience, it annoys them no end. (But that's another discussion entirely. What I was talking about has little to do with god of the gaps arguments.)

who said it did?????

You said that animals may have evolved since the flood to create current biodiversity, i.e. Noah might not have had to take so many animals with him. I was just pointing out that there wouldn't have been that much time to generate biodiversity in the time since Noah's flood.

Man am I confused as to what you think is being said... not sure what you think your arguing here, I'll just listen to you go on for a while and maybe it will start making some sense as to what you think you are discussing.

Let's go back to what I was responding to, and try to clarify things. This is what you wrote:

...as mentioned above, the modern evidence supports several single celled populations which would suggest that a "few" surviving species that evolved is possible

I'm now pretty certain that I misinterpreted this. The reference to single celled populations confused me; I thought you meant that those single-celled populations would've diversified into all these creatures after the flood. I think you actually meant that if all life comes from these ancient single-celled creatures, why couldn't a few surviving species repopulate the earth with its current level of biodiversity. Am I reading you correctly this time?

The answer to that is the time/speciation issue I brought up. We have only a few thousand years between the flood and now - that's too short for much speciation to occur (except for a few crazy cases like Lake Victoria cichlids). If only a few species survived Noah's flood, only a few species would exist on earth today.

humm, more not following the discussion, I never said, nor suggested the biblical account was not factual, only that it was not written as a scientific treatise and therefore should not be treated as one.

And I pointed out to you that "scientific treatise" may not be the best choice of words, and the question is whether it was meant as a description of reality. (You clearly think it was, and I don't know what to think.) If it wasn't, there's no point in trying to test it.

change what I started to write to a more gentle approach, it's been a tough week....What do you want to "drag" out of me?

A way to test a supernatural claim. You seem to think God or creation are testable hypotheses, so I thought you might have an idea how to test them.

Any supernatural being that interacts with the natural world will leave a mark.

We agreed on that, and repeating it doesn't bring us any closer to an answer.

That mark can be tested and explored, and tested again and if it is found to be identical to the claims of the supernatural being explored, it is evidence of and for the existance of that supernatural if not, it falsifies it.

So you don't have an example?

Let's take the Gen. account of creation as an example. If we use the rules of literature to evaluate the text, we see that it is not intended to be a scientific paper, but rather a well crafted argument for why the other gods of the day are not possibly gods.

So, is it meant to describe reality, or is it just clever rhetorics?

The claims of the other gods, then are shown by reason and natural observations of this world to be falsified gods.

Where does this happen? My knowledge of the Bible is... severely limited, so a pointer would be helpful.

That is how we should evaluate all claims of supernatural. well, I tried this on another thread and no one could agree on what criteria is used to test for createdness.

A pity. And I was hoping you had a good idea. (Honestly, that would be so exciting. It would probably also revolutionise science.) Now it seems that "createdness" remains an untestable property

So let's try your specifics this way...when we look at a rock formation, what tells us if it is a created structure, or a man made structure?

Since I'm not a geologist or an archaeologist, I probably can't impress you here (at least not with the level of detail that I used in the butterfly example). In extreme cases (Mt Rushmore ), it's simply Occam's Razor: it's just much more plausible that conscious, planned human effort carved the likeness of people into a hill than blind erosion doing the same. With, say, a burial mound, there's likely to be internal features such as tunnels, chambers, supporting structures, artefacts etc., and I bet man-made hills tend to have a more regular shape than most natural hills in the same environment (Pingos are fairly regular, but they don't occur in the kinds of places people build mounds)

HOWEVER. In these kinds of cases, there are lots of objects (hills, rock formations, whatever) formed both by human and by natural activity. Even if any particular property can't unambiguously classify a certain object, it's still possible to compare it to known natural and known man-made objects of the same kind. Even if the classification is not very certain, it can me attempted.

What do you do if there are neither known properties by which to classify, nor known examples with which to compare?

I predict that I'll be rambling about this a lot more, but just to make my point completely clear:

I don't think "createdness" is a testable property of all objects.

Clearly, you think otherwise. Since I have good reasons (which I laid out at the end of the previous post) to hold the bolded position, it's only natural of me to expect that you give me a concrete way to test for createdness. Unless you don't want to convince me, in which case there's little point in continuing this discussion.

I know I'm just restating, history says that you aren't going to deal with the issue.

I'm honestly trying to...

right, exactly, but each has similar characteristics, now list the characteristics that tell us what is man made and what is not...what tells us what is man made?

Sorry, maybe I didn't emphasise this enough:

(and that's assuming that there's more involved than just "gee, this looks a lot like man-made object X")

Read: I'm not sure there is a way of telling other than subjective comparison to objects of both classes.

And that leaves us with a serious problem when we don't have created/non-created samples to compare the object to.

right, the supernatural creation would be bigger, broader, more perfect.

"Perfect" is a very ill-defined word.

we do if we find the criteria that identfies what is created from what is not created.

That's precisely what we cannot do if there isn't a decent sample of both created and non-created objects.

Let's look at one of the first I explored even as a child. Something that is created, has a purpose...even if that purpose is to elisit the joy response, it has a purpose...so is there a purpose to the existance of life? I found a yes answer to that question.

Which is an utterly subjective answer if I'm not mistaken. To you, life has a purpose. To me, it doesn't. There's no objective way (that I'm aware of) to decide which one of us is right. Questions that can't be objectively answered cannot be used to test a hypothesis.

We also run into the lack-of-comparison problem here. Yes, man-made things are usually made for some purpose. That says sod all about things made by other creators. A sample of one is, statistically (and scientifically) speaking, next to useless.

I think your problem is that you expect everything to have a final conclusion not just exploration.

I don't think I have a problem as such. I'm quite comfortable in my worldview, and I wouldn't be overly shaken if I had to remain agnostic forever. If there is a problem it's that you seem to say that createdness can be tested, yet you haven't been able to suggest a way to test it. The only reason I expected a "final conclusion" is because you implied there was one.

Since you did bring up a specific (if poorly defined) property (purpose), I can't say you dodged the question...

Well, I guess I'll have to retreat into my good old agnostic uncertainty WRT the createdness of life, the universe and everything

Sometimes, we just don't have definate conclusions, you shouldn't fear this, it's part of life and science.

Hey, you know you're telling that to a scientist in training

 

[razzelflabben]

As you can see, I just did some research there

IF, as you claim, the text can talk about a local flood, AND uses "people" in a restrictive sense, which I still fail to see.

then....your sentence starts with IF, but I see no then following....what then do you intend?

The Bible talks about those kinds of people. Where does it imply that other kinds of people are not people? Not mentioning non-agricultural societies is not the same as implying they are not people.

Not following your complaint here, when we look at the text, it is very specific that these people are civilized people. The tenth generation of civilized people. If we are then looking for what the text says and not what man wants to make it say, then we will look at 10 generations beyond the first civilization, which takes us right to the fertile crescent...which leaves it a very real possible.

Huh? How did you get that from what I wrote?

we have two possibles, either 1. several single celled populations all developed the same creatures at similar times (something you said no one in their right mind believes) or 2. one single celled population evolved into humans while another into I don't know, take your pick....point is this we either had a single, single celled population of which science now says no, we had several single celled populations, or we have as science now says several single celled population. The biblical account would say that we started with several different strands of population. Which is what science now suggests.

As to getting from what you wrote, there are only two possibles, if you adi
adamantly reject one possible, then you must hold to the other. It's the logical conclusion.

You are trying to figure out what's possible based on the text. Now, the definition "people = agricultural societies" is certainly logically consistent with the text. That doesn't mean it's a plausible interpretation. I'm not necessarily saying that it isn't. I'm only saying that if the Bible doesn't really bother with defining people (and you haven't convinced me that it does), then the only plausible interpretations are those that involve the default definition for the cultural context of the stories. Anything else is twisting the meaning of the text, because if "people" meant something unconventional in Genesis, I'm pretty sure the author(s) would have said so.

only problem, the text does define people and the definition places it in the realm of civilized man....that is what you are missing, you are trying to justify your preference, not look at the text. In Gen. when man is described, it is always in light of what we define as civilization. For that reason, the only conclusion we can draw from the text, using literary rules as well as rules of logic, is that the text is indeed referring to civilized man.

By the way, read up on the description of man in Gen. it's pretty clear, just takes some reading. Clothes, farming, herding, building, iron works, tents, etc. Compare what Gen. says about people to this Civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that leaves only one viable conclusion, the people referred to were civilized.

Great, then your husband could help us interpret the flood story!

Except God brought everything that had to be kept alive to Noah. Where does it say that he also brought everything that didn't end up in the ark? (Yes, he could've done so. But if it's not implied in the text, we're getting into unfalsifiability territory again, and I thought we were trying to find testable claims in the Bible. More on that later...)

what didn't end up in the ark? Not following you here...

Testable claims is indeed what we are looking for, which was the point...there is nothing in the text to explain how certain animals "survived" the ark, only that the did. Therefore, we can't test how they survived only whether or not there is evidence to suggest that they did.

Not to mention that the text also explicitly says that "all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered [with flood waters].

do you understand anything about the culture of the people who probably wrote the text? Of course not...this comment testifies to that. So bit of a history lesson. One of the most common theories is that Abraham wrote Gen. though it is true that no one knows for sure. What we do know however is some about the culture of that people and that general time period. It would not be uncommon, in fact, it would be very common for the time frame we are referring (further back we go, more likely to be true) that heaven can refer to the skys that we see. In fact, the translation of the word used there is still in question as to the intended meaning....keep in mind this is ancient Hebrew without vowels or punctuation. So what we really have is a text that we cannot clarify it's intent as far as scope goes. Making matters even more complicated, is the fact that it is not written as a scientific explaination of anything, therefore could merely be a "poetic" way of speaking a truth that is intended. Bottom line, the text shows nothing concrete about how extensive the flood was, only what the outcome of that flood was. As stated above, it is the concretes we are looking for...

Any geologist will probably tell you that the Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alps and various other mountains are a lot older than civilisation, so they had to be there during the time of Noah's flood. And if they were there, they had to be flooded, too... (Unless you also think "entire heavens" means something special here?)

that is the point, if you study the text, not just apply tradition to it, we see that entire heavens can in fact be referring to a local area or a universal area, nothing that we have found to date (to my knowledge) specifies which is intended as far as scripture goes (as far as tradition goes, there is not question, but we are looking for text, not tradition which is where your having problems evidencing your claims)

Far as I can tell, I didn't bring up a god of the gaps argument, but that's besides the point.

The point, razzelflabben, is that I thought we were discussing how we could tease out testable claims from Biblical text. If you allow that God could've done anything between the lines, you also allow that ANY evidence could be explained away by God doing something that isn't mentioned in the text. "Physical evidence contradits verse X? Why, God could've done Y to produce this evidence!"

your missing the point...the point is that we can only test for the absolutes...the absolute is that God brought animals to the ark, to "rescue" them. Not how He took care of them while they were on the ark. So we can test for whether or not the animals survived (I'm guessing knowing that they existed in modern day is enough) but not for how it happened, that can only be speculation and that is the whole point. IOW's, we are testing to see if animals survived, not how they did....because the test does specify how they survived, only that they did survive on a big boat we call an ark.

And there goes testability out the window.

Good for you. I really don't get why you think evolutionists "love" god of the gaps theory. In my experience, it annoys them no end. (But that's another discussion entirely. What I was talking about has little to do with god of the gaps arguments.)

well, I tell people all the time, especially evolutionists that I refuse to deal with the god of the gaps nonsense, and yet I can't enter into a discussion with an evolutionist without them bringing it up as an argument against creation, and that is after I clearly state several times that I will not acknowledge such an arguement.

You said that animals may have evolved since the flood to create current biodiversity, i.e. Noah might not have had to take so many animals with him. I was just pointing out that there wouldn't have been that much time to generate biodiversity in the time since Noah's flood.

no problem for the absolutes, which is currently the only thing we're looking at.

Let's go back to what I was responding to, and try to clarify things. This is what you wrote:I'm now pretty certain that I misinterpreted this. The reference to single celled populations confused me; I thought you meant that those single-celled populations would've diversified into all these creatures after the flood. I think you actually meant that if all life comes from these ancient single-celled creatures, why couldn't a few surviving species repopulate the earth with its current level of biodiversity. Am I reading you correctly this time?

The answer to that is the time/speciation issue I brought up. We have only a few thousand years between the flood and now - that's too short for much speciation to occur (except for a few crazy cases like Lake Victoria cichlids). If only a few species survived Noah's flood, only a few species would exist on earth today.

where are you getting your time frame of a few thousand years? but hey, we can still deal with it, because the point being made is that biodiversity does not falsify the biblical account of the flood.

And I pointed out to you that "scientific treatise" may not be the best choice of words, and the question is whether it was meant as a description of reality. (You clearly think it was, and I don't know what to think.) If it wasn't, there's no point in trying to test it.

hummmm????? Not a clue in all this world what you are intending to say here.

A way to test a supernatural claim. You seem to think God or creation are testable hypotheses, so I thought you might have an idea how to test them.

yep, as talked about it some, but based on the above, I think we need to only discuss one thing at a time, you seem to be getting some of this confused with others things.

We agreed on that, and repeating it doesn't bring us any closer to an answer.

So you don't have an example?

several, unfortunately only a few are documented. Are you one of those who refuses all evidence because you don't want to believe, or one who accepts evidence and weighs it according to it's documentations? That will help me narrow down which to offer you.

So, is it meant to describe reality, or is it just clever rhetorics?

it is meant to explain, discribe if you prefer, why the things people worship as gods cannot be gods at all. Why there can only be one God.

Where does this happen? My knowledge of the Bible is... severely limited, so a pointer would be helpful.

well, it would be helpful to actually study the text so that we could point by point point it out, but the basic just of it is that what is created cannot be the creator...here are a couple of sites to reference for more details Is Genesis poetry / figurative, a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history?
Genesis 1-2 In Light Of Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths | Bible.org
That will get you started...

A pity. And I was hoping you had a good idea. (Honestly, that would be so exciting. It would probably also revolutionise science.) Now it seems that "createdness" remains an untestable property

so we can't and don't scientifically test for what is created and what is not? Compare what is man created to what is animal created...how do we know if we can't test? I'm confused, we see science testing for createdness, but when we want to test the natural world for createdness, suddenly science can't do it???? How does that follow? What is the logic of that?

 

[razzelflabben]

Part 2:

Since I'm not a geologist or an archaeologist, I probably can't impress you here (at least not with the level of detail that I used in the butterfly example). In extreme cases (Mt Rushmore ), it's simply Occam's Razor: it's just much more plausible that conscious, planned human effort carved the likeness of people into a hill than blind erosion doing the same. With, say, a burial mound, there's likely to be internal features such as tunnels, chambers, supporting structures, artefacts etc., and I bet man-made hills tend to have a more regular shape than most natural hills in the same environment (Pingos are fairly regular, but they don't occur in the kinds of places people build mounds)[/quote] right, so how do we know? What tells us...what about a burrow, or a small mound in the sand? What of dens, how do we know that they were created by animals if as you claim, we can't test for them because we have a measureing stick for humans but not the supernatural....what about the first man made thing, how do we know about it. How about scratch marks on a tree? All these things we test daily for createdness, how can we will be don't know how to test for createdness? See, your missing the point. The point is that created things have characteristics that identify them as created. We can use the same characteristics to test our world and the life in it.

HOWEVER. In these kinds of cases, there are lots of objects (hills, rock formations, whatever) formed both by human and by natural activity. Even if any particular property can't unambiguously classify a certain object, it's still possible to compare it to known natural and known man-made objects of the same kind. Even if the classification is not very certain, it can me attempted.

right, exactly, we know that throughout the centuries, life has "evolved". We have witnessed it, seen it, documented it, etc. So we have something to compare the "origins" of this life, this world by. In fact, the bible tells us that God set things in motion and let's them run, so we have a naturally occuring to compare to.

BTW, just an interesting side note, when it comes to some of the new genetic evidence for the ToE, I spoke about not having a base line to compare it to and I was told we didn't need one, now your saying a base line is a requirement for science...just an interesting side note... where double standards rule, truth cannot be found.

What do you do if there are neither known properties by which to classify, nor known examples with which to compare?

I don't know, we have those things, so why speculate?

I predict that I'll be rambling about this a lot more, but just to make my point completely clear:

I don't think "createdness" is a testable property of all objects.

I am fully aware of your opinion on this matter, and I think your wrong and I am fully willing and ready to lay out why I think your wrong for as long as you are willing to listen to another opinion. And no, listening doesn't require you to agree, they are vastly different things. In fact, I doubt very much that you could be convinced that it can be done, but understanding what I am saying doesn't demand you agree, only that you show some clue of comprehension.

Clearly, you think otherwise. Since I have good reasons (which I laid out at the end of the previous post) to hold the bolded position, it's only natural of me to expect that you give me a concrete way to test for createdness. Unless you don't want to convince me, in which case there's little point in continuing this discussion.

see above, in fact, the reasons why we can are equal to the reasons you gave for not being able to. So don't pretend I didn't answer your questions or respond with viable solutions. If you want more detail, let me just say this, it's a give and take...if you don't think I'm being specific enough, try being more specific yourself.

I'm honestly trying to...

Sorry, maybe I didn't emphasise this enough:Read: I'm not sure there is a way of telling other than subjective comparison to objects of both classes.

And that leaves us with a serious problem when we don't have created/non-created samples to compare the object to.

trying to cut this post down to size, if I miss something important, sorry....we do have comparisons...both in the natural world and in the bible.

"Perfect" is a very ill-defined word.

That's precisely what we cannot do if there isn't a decent sample of both created and non-created objects.

we have lots of samples...that is the point.

Which is an utterly subjective answer if I'm not mistaken. To you, life has a purpose. To me, it doesn't. There's no objective way (that I'm aware of) to decide which one of us is right. Questions that can't be objectively answered cannot be used to test a hypothesis.

we can test by comparing the purpose of life to those without purpose. Further testing those with specific purposes to those without differing purposes...you see, science is about exploration, testing, it isn't about answers, it's about finding out all that we can. when we limit science to only what we can find answers for, we are limiting science too much.

We also run into the lack-of-comparison problem here. Yes, man-made things are usually made for some purpose. That says sod all about things made by other creators. A sample of one is, statistically (and scientifically) speaking, next to useless.

I don't think I have a problem as such. I'm quite comfortable in my worldview, and I wouldn't be overly shaken if I had to remain agnostic forever. If there is a problem it's that you seem to say that createdness can be tested, yet you haven't been able to suggest a way to test it. The only reason I expected a "final conclusion" is because you implied there was one.

I gave specific ways to test for createdness and where we get our baseline and still you claim I have not given specifics...

Since you did bring up a specific (if poorly defined) property (purpose), I can't say you dodged the question...

looking at the above paragraph, it's obvious that you can say anything you want, the question is how truthfull are the claims being made?

Well, I guess I'll have to retreat into my good old agnostic uncertainty WRT the createdness of life, the universe and everything

Hey, you know you're telling that to a scientist in training

no problem, so far you haven't offered anything that would falsify our ability to test for createdness, when you do, then I'll reconsider...

 

[random325nicaea]

Really? I didn´t realise I was getting any answers.

*sry i've been gone and will be long for a long time still.

but i just happened to pop in, and the amount fallacies and answer dodging razzel commited in 111 and 113, are about to fry my brains.

i knew i wasn't going to get anything worthwhile out of her at the 2nd post, i've seen these kind of creationists before, and they have no right to even be a "skeptic" of ToE when they are obviously so poorly informed on biology, ecology, archeology and history to even comprehend the implications of the claims god makes in gen.

you have no right to call yourself a "skeptic" razzle, you're just one of those "bible strechers" who's now grabbing at all the straws she can find. perhaps you should read the "conclusions" part in all the scientific articles you claim containt data that supports your position. usually they writers make a nice condensation of what the actual results imply.

bb, see you in a month or more.
the life sciences are calling me.....
(yes razzle, i will spend the next 5 years of my life looking at those things you would call "indicators of createdness" and i will be seeing them explained by natural processes requiring no divine intervention whatsoever.)

PS: GL NARAOIA!

"|but rather a well crafted argument for why the other gods of the day are not possibly gods. The claims of the other gods, then are shown by reason and natural observations of this world to be falsified gods. That is how we should evaluate all claims of supernatural."

AAAUUWWW!!! my classical history information meter just exploded.....

since the way juppiter created life is just as vague as what yahweh did.