Let's devise a way to explain proof burden and claims vs non-claims to creationists

juvenissun said:

Practically, that is your best bet. (for those thing you "think" you understand, God still did it)

Otherwise, you will be one of those described in the Bible: Die without knowledge. Earlier atheistic scientists died in such a way. Current atheistic scientists will die in the same manner. Only theistic (strictly speaking, Christian) scientists died or will die with true knowledge.

Click to expand...

The irony of it all, "goddidit" is proffered by those who literally don't understand science... at all.

A very wise man once said;

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”

Smidlee said:

As Denton pointed out evolution assumes this and not predicted it. It begs the question why are there fish ERV , mammal ERV , reptiles ERV, etc. (genes) while random mutation and NS should have burred the lines by now. I agree with Denton this pattern goes against Neo-Darwin more than support it.

Click to expand...

Please share the data as to how long ERV sequences are supposed to last.

Delphiki said:

No it's not... and it's been proven that it's not throughout the history of all man kind. Every explanation for everything ever known has been natural... ever. I'm not even sure how you've even concluded that gods are somehow the "best bet". That's just absurd.



The religious don't die knowing the truth. They only die convinced they are right.

We also know wayyyyy more than scientists did back then. Religion has advanced not so much.... Well, not at all, really.

All the medicine and food that you benefit from today, that's been able to double your lifespan when compared to people than lived only 100 years before you, is thanks to science, not religion.

Click to expand...

With all your knowledge, let me ask you one simple question, which I only get an acceptable answer at the recent time: why should the lifespan of human being be limited to 100 years or so? (The Bible says so)

It is a dead end if you consider this question from a scientific point of view.

Delphiki said:

Our lifespans ave doubled since then,

Click to expand...

[not a true story]

Ya ... when I was born, I was born with an inheritance of $1000.00 in stocks in the bank.

Then the [stock market] Fall occurred, and my inheritance dropped to $35.00.

Now, thanks to intelligent investors, my inheritance is now $70.00.

[/not a true story]

Should I pay homage to the Bull or the Bear?

Delphiki said:

... allowing us to enjoy life more...

Click to expand...

If you are enjoying life more, it's because of God-given scientists doing their jobs.

Delphiki said:

Gods didn't grant this to us -- our own ingenuity did.

Click to expand...

You wouldn't have ingenuity, if it wasn't for God.

Delphiki said:

I realize English may not be your first language, but I didn't say anything about lifespans being 100 years. I was talking about people who lived 100 years ago.

Our lifespans ave doubled since then, allowing us to enjoy life more... Gods didn't grant this to us -- our own ingenuity did.

Now, please either return to the topic or post somewhere else.

Click to expand...

You do not understand.

Medical technology may have prolonged our average life span from 40 then to 80 now. But the Bible says 4000 years ago that we are allowed to live about 100 years. (my slightly off-point, but important, question to you is: Why? )

Now you tell me what is the significance of our medical technology? Basically, nothing. Regard to this problem, science does NOT give us any answer. You may brag about the technology again when our average age reaches to 130 years.

For those atheistic scientists who are currently working hard on the longevity problem of human being, they WILL die without true knowledge.

essentialsaltes said:

That's hilarious. It is the creationists who treat Genesis as a science text (or at the very least, a truthful account of things that happened).
It is the theistic evolutionists who treat the Bible as a religious text, and not as an answer book for scientific questions.

(Depending on your atheist, she might call it a religious text, or a science book that's all wrong.)

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

I'm going to have to disagree on this one.

Click to expand...

"The Bible is the foundation for science. " https://answersingenesis.org/science/

I opened it and started reading, and I certainly did not get that impression. When do the sciencey bits start?

AV1611VET said:

...
If you are enjoying life more, it's because of God-given scientists doing their jobs.

Click to expand...

Are those the ones born with their credentials, rather than having to earn them?

AV1611VET said:

You wouldn't have ingenuity, if it wasn't for God.

Click to expand...

Or, those wonderful people that wear pants.

Davian said:

"The Bible is the foundation for science. " https://answersingenesis.org/science/

I opened it and started reading, and I certainly did not get that impression. When do the sciencey bits start?

Click to expand...

The science comes from the parts about being honest and trusting God to be consistent.

Radical honesty was required for science to gain a beginning foothold, and religion helps to have that radical honesty, in some cases, for which we are all eternally grateful. Those who were stuck with that radical honesty, on the other hand, were often ill served in this mortal world.

In order to cling to certain religious points of view, the opposite has to occur . . . radical honesty must take a back seat to social conformity.

Radical honesty continues to receive social rebukes. It seems to me that radical honesty remains part of becoming the ideal truly spiritual person.

Davian said:

I opened it and started reading, and I certainly did not get that impression.

Click to expand...

Neither do I.

So what's your point?

Davian said:

Are those the ones born with their credentials, rather than having to earn them?

Click to expand...

They are the ones born with golden clipboards in their hands.

Did Mozart have to earn his credentials? yes, he did.

Did Bobby Fischer have to earn his credentials? yes, he did.

Do God-gifted scientists have to earn their credentials? yes, they do.

Loudmouth said:

What is there? Discuss it. Show why it is evidence.

Click to expand...

What do you want to discuss, specifically?

HitchSlap said:

The irony of it all, "goddidit" is proffered by those who literally don't understand science... at all.

A very wise man once said;

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”

Click to expand...

God did it is also the ultimate truth for one who knows science the best.

Smidlee said:

When we say "God did it" we are referring to the ultimate causes of everything and not some gap of knowledge that naturalism produces. Naturalist put all their faith into science hoping it will light to path of truth while in reality science only reveals more darkness than light.

Click to expand...

The more one knows, the more one does not know. That is very true.

Delphiki said:

That's not science.

Click to expand...

It comes down to saying someone else is wrong and no, we don't need to check experimental results, we already know they are wrong . . .

and realizing that's not honest. So we'll go ahead and

- Look through the telescope, see that the moon has mountains and venus has phases after all, therefore Aristotalian cosmology is flawed

- Weigh the results of a burn and see that matter has increased in the products of combustion, not decreased and the Phlosgen theory is wrong

- Measure the speed of light and compare it with the distance of distant stars and realize the stars were out there millions and billions of years ago

And so forth.

Radical honesty is required for the advancement of science.

juvenissun said:

The more one knows, the more one does not know. That is very true.

Click to expand...

Make that the more one realizes one does not know.