The Only Debate Worth Having About Science And The Past

[Loudmouth]

Notice I wrote "your mind". you are assuming exactly as this video points out , that man can explain himself away mechanically.

No one is explaining anything away. Why do you keep using that phrase?

 

[Doveaman]

To be exact, if we follow your logic, the experiment demonstrates that human beings are responsible for creating the environment of the ancient earth.

I agree. But only one human was needed:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. -- (Col 1:15-16).

 

[Doveaman]

The thoughts are the brain's reaction to stimuli.

Is that the same as music is the piano's reaction to the keyboard?

If intelligent thoughts are the brain's reaction to stimuli, this would mean that the stimuli is from an intelligent source apart from the brain.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Neurobiologist can't speak and think outside their head.

Why would they need to?

Where did this assumption come from except inside your head.

It's an observation, not an assumption.

You are still referring to how our brain reacts yet it doesn't explain the one who doing the explaining. Who is actually doing the watching?

It's just a study on how brains work. Your questions are meaningless.
Are you saying that a brain can't be properly studied? If yes, have you informed neurologists, neuro-biologists, etc about this?

 

[joshua 1 9]

No, I'm asking about the authority of natural law to violate itself and create something from nothingness.

Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfill the law.

 

[KWCrazy]

Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfill the law.

Wrong law.
He was talking about God's laws, not the laws of science.
Science is the study of the physical world. Useful, but compared to studying the word of God it will get you no closer to the Father.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Wrong law.
He was talking about God's laws, not the laws of science.
Science is the study of the physical world. Useful, but compared to studying the word of God it will get you no closer to the Father.

We draw closer to God through thanksgiving and praise. Science can get us closer to the Father if we have an attitude of gratitude. We all have the same evidence. We do not all have the same attitude in regard to the awareness God has given us of the evidence we all have to examine.

 

[KWCrazy]

We do not all have the same attitude in regard to the awareness God has given us of the evidence we all have to examine.

The greatest evidence God has given us is His Word. In that Word He demonstrated 333 times that natural law yields to His will. In His Word He told us that He created man intact. We did not evolve from anything. We were created by the Father to His glory. He is not amused when we reject His word for the theories of men.

 

[Queller]

(since life did not always exists in our universe)

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

 

[Doveaman]

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

The universe was formed before the life within it.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The greatest evidence God has given us is His Word. In that Word He demonstrated 333 times that natural law yields to His will. In His Word He told us that He created man intact. We did not evolve from anything. We were created by the Father to His glory. He is not amused when we reject His word for the theories of men.

Yes exactly. Timothy says it best when he says: "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

People that do not correctly handle the word of truth will be ashamed when they present themselves before God to give an account of how well they represented or misrepresented the written word of God.

 

[SkyWriting]

I challenge anyone here who thinks that science cannot examine the past to commit a crime - and crime - that leaves no direct witnesses, then argue that forensics cannot be applied in your trial because science cannot examine the past.

Circumstantial evidence is part of the story, but it rarely wins a case on it's own.

The scientific method, a time-honored approach for discovering and testing scientific truth, does not and cannot work for the forensic sciences in its standard form because it does not work for past events. Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally.

“in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.” (Wolfs, 2007, ¶4.) The prosecution and defense in a criminal prosecution will each possess experts attempting to discredit the other.

BADLY FRAGMENTED' FORENSIC SCIENCE SYSTEM NEEDS OVERHAUL;
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT RELIABILITY OF MANY TECHNIQUES IS LACKING

 

[SkyWriting]

You are missing the point, that the arguments used in these made up stories are the same type of arguments used by creationists.

That is never the readers fault.

 

[The Cadet]

You keep citing Heartland Forensics as though it was some important expert resource, rather than an absolute fringe group that nobody has heard of. I can't for the life of me understand why.

 

[Loudmouth]

Circumstantial evidence is part of the story, but it rarely wins a case on it's own.

The scientific method, a time-honored approach for discovering and testing scientific truth, does not and cannot work for the forensic sciences in its standard form because it does not work for past events. Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally.

“in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.” (Wolfs, 2007, ¶4.) The prosecution and defense in a criminal prosecution will each possess experts attempting to discredit the other.

BADLY FRAGMENTED' FORENSIC SCIENCE SYSTEM NEEDS OVERHAUL;
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT RELIABILITY OF MANY TECHNIQUES IS LACKING
http://www.heartlandforensic.com/writing/forensic-science-and-the-scientific-method

Not a scientific source.

 

[SkyWriting]

Not a scientific source.

If you have a scientific source that refutes the logic, then please cite it and we
will compare the logic of the two.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you have a scientific source that refutes the logic, then please cite it and we
will compare the logic of the two.

When you have a scientific source, then there will be something to refute.

 

[SkyWriting]

When you have a scientific source, then there will be something to refute.

Are you assuming this forum is a peer-reviewed journal?
That's an odd assumption.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you assuming this forum is a peer-reviewed journal?
That's an odd assumption.

I am assuming that you are trying to be honest and use accurate representations of how science is done. Should I not make that assumption?

 

[SkyWriting]

I am assuming that you are trying to be honest and use accurate representations of how science is done. Should I not make that assumption?

It's not done in forums or on video.