My Creation Science Challenge

[Kenny'sID]

Sounds good. I'll leave the poofed, magic'd, miracled, goddidit, to you, then.

Pretending the point is something other than what the two of us are discussing is an even more pitiful cop out than the first.

Funny too.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Does the standard big bang theory of the origin of the universe count as a poof?

It could I suppose, but I thought they had moved on from that.

If you're interested, refresh my memory on how that BB theory works and I'll tell you what is does for me. Then again it's only a theory, but still...I'm game.

 

[HitchSlap]

Pretending the point is something other than what the two of us are discussing is an even more pitiful cop out than the first.

Funny too.

Funny is thinking you actually had a point, to begin with.

Sorry to disappoint, but not everyone considers your myth more salient than any other. The point of a myth, is to understand, in context, what a culture is intending to convey. For all intents and purposes, "poofed/magic'd/miracled, should be treated as synonymous vernacular.

 

[HitchSlap]

It could I suppose, but I thought they had moved on from that.

If you're interested, refresh my memory on how that BB theory works and I'll tell you what is does for me. Then again it's only a theory, but still...I'm game.

"Theory," you keep saying that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It could I suppose, but I thought they had moved on from that.

If you're interested, refresh my memory on how that BB theory works and I'll tell you what is does for me. Then again it's only a theory, but still...I'm game.

That the whole universe started from a point of origin that expanded and the energy of the universe precipitated out as hydrogen plus radiation and the stars and the galaxies formed from that . . .

 

[HitchSlap]

That the whole universe started from a point of origin that expanded and the energy of the universe precipitated out as hydrogen plus radiation and the stars and the galaxies formed from that . . .

And to think that millions of years from now, as the galaxies spread apart from each other, we won't be able to make the same observations we used to understand our origins!

 

[RickG]

"Peer Review" does not truth make.

Many "Peers" of the time of Hitler thought it was a good thing to commit genocide of the Jews.

They were wrong.

You are just trying to be funny, right?

 

[AV1611VET]

... there's nothing to understand.

That is correct.

There's NOTHING to understand.

That's the premise of ex nihilo.

 

[HitchSlap]

That is correct.

There's NOTHING to understand.

That's the premise of ex nihilo.

Yeah, well, that's a false premise.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, well, that's a false premise.

You said it first.

 

[JacksBratt]

You are just trying to be funny, right?

Actually, it's not funny. It's quite sad. Peer review is losing it's "validity". So is science.

Science used to look at all the data, all the observations were considered as the scientist searched for the truth. Peer review was in place so that a new discovery could be seen by all and thus "reviewed" to see if it correlated with the findings of other scientists and their observations. Everything was heading for the big picture, the real truth of this world. Everyone was open to new ideas and you could get quite a name if you found something new.

The thing is, we have now got a solid fact based truth of how the world got to where it is. It's age and how the creatures and humans ended up here. This "fact" that is taught everywhere is "evolution". Somewhere it went from a theory taught along side creation, to being the one and only possibility for everything we see when we get up in the morning or stare at a starry sky...The elusive "truth" was found.

PROBLEM.... now, if you are a scientist and your are gathering information and tabulating data... it becomes quite a problem if you discover something that is going to be difficult to fit in the "truth" that academia is teaching and drumming into everyone's head. You discover something.... it just won't fit the model. But, you retest and find it to be true. Do you dare present this new observation? Hardly... you will be scoffed at, ridiculed, funding will be stopped, careers ruined.. credibility...lost. Any paper will be ripped to shreds by the hive mind.

So, you have a choice. Cover it up, lose it, distort it so that it fits. Skew the results or forget it all together.

Now, on the other hand, a paper of vague credibility that fits the present day model, will be welcomed with open arms and you will be patted on the back for such a superb job. If your work is close but not a perfect fit, someone else out there will be happy to show you the way to mold it into the model.

What I am saying is that scientist today are looking, more, for proof of the existing dogma instead of looking at the observations and letting the truth unfold. The are out to prove a concept at whatever cost.

Why have we veered from this foundational necessity of science? Pour water on the ground and see where it flows... but oh no.......... that's not where the water should have went, according to the past predictions. So, you carve up the land, digging here, mounding there and in the end the water flows just where it was predicted to flow........ Not the true path but that's not what matters.

Science is no longer a quest for truth. It is a bunch of egg heads picking up the pieces they want and leaving behind anything that could cause difficulty in putting the truth together.

Peer review becomes "pal" review. A bunch of good 'ol boys patting each other on the back, keeping the funding and gravy train rolling, maintaining their "good" names and fancy labs. Keeping their supporters and investors happy while the truth, well the truth is not important.

 

[HitchSlap]

Actually, it's not funny. It's quite sad. Peer review is losing it's "validity". So is science.

Science used to look at all the data, all the observations were considered as the scientist searched for the truth. Peer review was in place so that a new discovery could be seen by all and thus "reviewed" to see if it correlated with the findings of other scientists and their observations. Everything was heading for the big picture, the real truth of this world. Everyone was open to new ideas and you could get quite a name if you found something new.

The thing is, we have now got a solid fact based truth of how the world got to where it is. It's age and how the creatures and humans ended up here. This "fact" that is taught everywhere is "evolution". Somewhere it went from a theory taught along side creation, to being the one and only possibility for everything we see when we get up in the morning or stare at a starry sky...The elusive "truth" was found.

PROBLEM.... now, if you are a scientist and your are gathering information and tabulating data... it becomes quite a problem if you discover something that is going to be difficult to fit in the "truth" that academia is teaching and drumming into everyone's head. You discover something.... it just won't fit the model. But, you retest and find it to be true. Do you dare present this new observation? Hardly... you will be scoffed at, ridiculed, funding will be stopped, careers ruined.. credibility...lost. Any paper will be ripped to shreds by the hive mind.

So, you have a choice. Cover it up, lose it, distort it so that it fits. Skew the results or forget it all together.

Now, on the other hand, a paper of vague credibility that fits the present day model, will be welcomed with open arms and you will be patted on the back for such a superb job. If your work is close but not a perfect fit, someone else out there will be happy to show you the way to mold it into the model.

What I am saying is that scientist today are looking, more, for proof of the existing dogma instead of looking at the observations and letting the truth unfold. The are out to prove a concept at whatever cost.

Why have we veered from this foundational necessity of science? Pour water on the ground and see where it flows... but oh no.......... that's not where the water should have went, according to the past predictions. So, you carve up the land, digging here, mounding there and in the end the water flows just where it was predicted to flow........ Not the true path but that's not what matters.

Science is no longer a quest for truth. It is a bunch of egg heads picking up the pieces they want and leaving behind anything that could cause difficulty in putting the truth together.

Peer review becomes "pal" review. A bunch of good 'ol boys patting each other on the back, keeping the funding and gravy train rolling, maintaining their "good" names and fancy labs. Keeping their supporters and investors happy while the truth, well the truth is not important.

Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Funny is thinking you actually had a point, to begin with.

Sorry to disappoint, but not everyone considers your myth more salient than any other. The point of a myth, is to understand, in context, what a culture is intending to convey. For all intents and purposes, "poofed/magic'd/miracled, should be treated as synonymous vernacular.

"Theory," you keep saying that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.

So still no answer to my earlier post? Seems to me that with all your cuts on others explanations, you might at least hint of one yourself. Here ya' go, just in case you forgot, or am I to assume you got nothing of your own?

Then show us some way other than the meaningless drivel you mention...enlighten us to reality and you will no longer have to bother with those convoluted myths that seem to bother you.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That the whole universe started from a point of origin that expanded and the energy of the universe precipitated out as hydrogen plus radiation and the stars and the galaxies formed from that . . .

Theoretical Poof. Theoretical in the original sense that is. What was the point of origin and why did it expand?...actually never mind, I'm no going to do that to ya'.

Just a tad too many unanswered questions for me in "it started somewhere and expanded"...but hey! I guess it sounds good to someone who wants to believe it....I guess.

What do you think of that?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Sorry, can't help myself, Paul, you really don't see how ridiculous that sounds?

And to think that millions of years from now, as the galaxies spread apart from each other, we won't be able to make the same observations we used to understand our origins!

Hitch, is that to say you really buy that nonsense?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Sorry, can't help myself, Paul, you really don't see how ridiculous that sounds?

Its not about how ridiculous it sounds. Its about the evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ex nihilo, false dichotomy?...Polly want a cracker?

So.... no research to post, then?

What exactly is false about this?....
"creating is the only way we have EVER seen anything come into being and we have NEVER seen something from nothing."

I have never seen anything "come into being". I've only ever seen things being re-arranged.

At best, one could talk about certain particles in quantum physics, which seem to pop-up out of nowhere and disappear again into "nowhere". However, no particle-creating-entities are seen there either.

And saying "we never observed x happening, so therefor it never happens", is an argument from ignorance.

And your casual chain of events that brought us into existence are?

This thread is about "creation science" and the claims associated with it.

Show me a challenge and I'll answer it/take you seriously...you've not done so as of yet.

Read the OP.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And your explanation of how we got here, start to finish is?

Again, this thread is about "creation science".

For the sake of argument and for the purpose of this thread, I'll just say "I don't know".

Now, meet your own burden of proof.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you are stating that it didn't happen, you would, then be required to show how all this came to be and that there was, in fact, no "poofing" into existence.

No, I don't.

If it wasn't "magic" where did it come from?

The origins of the universe are unknown. I don't need to know how the universe began, to dismiss self-contradictory bare assertions with zero evidence.

Both the creationist and the evolutionist must have some sort of foundation for all this to be here in the first place.

Why?

You are easily humored.... God didn't say that He had to rest. There is no reason to believe that He needed to. He simply states that He did rest.

To "rest" implies being tired.
Why would an all powerfull immortal being become tired?

The reason He did this is to set an example for His created humans, the ones made in His image, is to follow His example and rest every seven days......

Then why do we rest every day? Or do you stay awake for 6 days straight?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Really?

Yes, really.

A person who, has no idea what, on this earth, would be considered as adequate evidence to be proof enough for him to believe wants me to start giving random occurrences that I, a believer, consider to be adequate, then they can just go "nope"...."nope"...."nope".....

Did you read my post?

I didn't speak about any "random occurences".

I said that without a well-defined falsifiable model about what this god is, I can't tell you what kind of evidence would convince me that this god exists. Seems pretty logical....

I don't think I'm playing this game.
If you want me to buy your car...........you have to tell me what it will cost....
None of this "I don't know how much I want, name a price and I'll let ya know"
When you have an idea of what it would take to convince you, then we'll talk.

I can only repeat myself....

Without a well-defined, falsifiable model that describes what X is, it is impossible to tell what evidence would show the model to be accurate.

Unfalsifiable models are infinite in number and are unsupportable by definition.