- Mar 26, 2018
- 1,080
- 280
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Upvote
0
Secular Science Thinks Billions Of Planets Have Sentient Life. So Why Haven't They/We Made Contact?
- Thread starter jamesbond007
- Start date
- Mar 26, 2018
- 1,080
- 280
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
It's historical evidence for God, too. We have found the Bible and in it are his statements of what he did in Genesis. The Bible is a historical and non-fiction book.
As for operationally defined for God, it would have to be catastrophism. Anything catastrophic by nature that happens is attributed to God. Also, it would be direct testimony by God through the Bible. He states that he created everything in Genesis.
As for evolutionary operation, I'm not questioning the operation, but the results. We have the same facts of the universe and everything in it including Earth, humans, plants, animals, etc., but we do not have the same operations and outputs. For example, creation scientists output is an adult chicken that was created first. Atheist scientists output is an egg. Creation scientists output are mature flowers came before the bee. Atheist scientists output is the bee came before the flowers based on millions of years old circumstantial evidence.
Upvote
0
Le me ask one question: "Do you take it that the Bible contains truths?"
I'll take your above chicken/egg and flower/bee examples as being intended figuratively(?)jamesbond007 said:
i) Whether a scientist rejects a belief in a deity, (or not), is completely irrelevant when it comes to following the scientific process I stated in my last post .. (same goes for any religious belief-holding scientist .. nothing in the process says that a scientific thinker must reject or accept beliefs in a deity/deities before executing the steps).
ii) The elements describing the principle of Evolution came from observations. I do not see how observations can be said as being 'circumstantial'. Do you agree that you can observe the Sun rising and setting each day? How is that 'circumstantial evidence'?
iii) I think you just distinguished Science from Creationism .. the two clearly do not follow the same process and so one would expect the outputs to differ, no?
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,279
- 8,500
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Finding life would take the time of civilization to find it. And no time left to get back home to loved ones long dead. And there's no snacks on the road trip trip. You'd need to find a food planet pretty close.
Upvote
0
The crux of the matter.
What evidence do you have for any of this?
Well someone wrote some stuff down.... which appears to be at odds with observations of the natural world.
But maybe he did create everything, who knows, but if he did it wasn't according to what is written in Genesis.
But who cares? You obviously have a very tenuous understanding of science and a powerful emotional motivation to dismiss well evidenced and accepted science.
Really?
Wrong. Yet again, evidence in black and white that you really don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Which Came First—The Chicken or the Egg?
"As this diversity was passed from parent to offspring, most likely a non-chicken bird eventually laid an egg containing a chicken. So, technically speaking, it’s very likely that the Gallus domesticus egg came first."
Of course, this view isn't shared by other creationist organizations, as they have a tendency to make things up as they see fit...
What Came First, the Chicken or the Egg?
According to the Creator of chickens, and the author of the Record of their origins, chickens came first. It was on the Fifth Day of Creation Week that He created "every winged fowl after [their] kind" (Genesis 1:21) complete with the DNA to reproduce that kind. Then He "blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply" (v.22) using that DNA. For the chickens this meant lay chicken eggs. Problem solved.
Maybe you have evidence that you can share with us that chickens were created fully formed from nothing (or from dust or whatever), I'd be interested to hear which "facts" back up your claims.
Your source claims that birds and fish were created on the same "day", and land animals later.... observations of the natural world don't reflect that.
I was under the impression that they evolved at roughly similar times but I'm no expert on bee or flowering plant evolution and I'm not going to waste my time googling it.
I see you're still accusing your fellow christians of being "atheists" though. Charming.
Upvote
0
Have you had any formal science education? Have you ever done any scientific research? your posts suggest that you don't really know what science is or how it is done.
The bolded part describes your 'critique' perfectly.
Generating and testing hypotheses is part of the scientific method, i.e. real science.
The ToE explains how life diversifies; it is not concerned with its origin.
Macroevolution has been observed at the species level, and is supported over geological timescales by multiple consilient lines of evidence. It could be wrong - some powerful malevolent entity could have faked it all to deceive us, but that kind of speculation is a philosophical dead end; we must take the world as we find it.
Upvote
0
I've criticised other scientist's work before, and will do so again, if I don't think it's up to scratch. Scientists criticise each other's work all the time.Missed this one. NASA deleted it so unless someone kept a copy it is gone. If I find it somewhere in the near future, then I'll post it here. Of course, you won't criticize a fellow atheist scientist will you? It's not me you should be criticizing but atheist science NASA.
ETA: I just found this from NASA.
NASA Research Gives Guideline for Future Alien Life Search
Scientist Developing Instrument for Finding Extraterrestrial Bacteria
Will give both a read and see if there is something we can talk more about.
The linked articles are about ideas for detecting possible signs of life elsewhere; no mention of Martian fish in streams, no claims that life will be found.
Try again.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
At best, it's evidence for historical beliefs in God. It's largely a grab-bag of repurposed myths and legends of earlier times.
Upvote
0
- Mar 26, 2018
- 1,080
- 280
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Colossal ignorance. Why just put it on me? Best-selling book of non-fiction
You are I are not talking about science in the same terms. If you do not understand which came first, then ask questions.
Upvote
0
- Mar 26, 2018
- 1,080
- 280
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
What's the matter? Don't you believe me
? I have to believe your (bleep).The author's name is in the book or letters. It's not just someone. It was written very early on by various writers over time (not just one year, not just one place) before we took observations of the natural world as you put it around 3500 years ago. However, it's not a science book. It pre-dates science, but there is science in it and science ends up backing the Bible. Why else would I be here arguing science ,i.e. creation science vs. today's atheist science, if not for that? The Bible is also a religious book. Much of the people parts in it are. I don't use that, but some of the people are play key roles, so will use them in discussion.
. I would think you're on the emo side. You have no aliens. You have no chimps or apes that walk bipedal. You have no dinosaur chicken. We want Jurassic Park, but we do have Ark Encounter now and an version Noah's Ark that floats and travels places and a creation museum. We probably want an alien zoo. I read about that in Superman comics when I was a kid haha. And even if you train a chimps to walk bipedal, humans would still rule over him as the Bible states.As for the rest, it sounded boorish, so just skipped. Let me know if you said anything interesting
.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Mar 26, 2018
- 1,080
- 280
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
I've had college physics, chemistry and passed the science requirements from a top western university that wrote the curriculum on evolution -- evolution.berkeley.edu. Photo by Goody Goodrich As I said, I can read complex scientific and technical articles and summarize in my line of work. I retired early, but now looking to get back into doing some more work and write some books. What is your background? Sorry, I've forgotten if you mentioned it.
I think the rest is more FB baloney. Otherwise, you'd have evidence of aliens, abiogenesis, chimps/apes that are bipedal and the start of Jurassic Park, at least for aviary. Just think if you gave 10% of what NASA gets to creation scientists and see what they come up with.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Mar 26, 2018
- 1,080
- 280
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Read post #529 and #530. And the Bible is not "largely a grab-bag of repurposed myths and legends of earlier times." That's what your atheist beliefs led you to believe. Science backs up Genesis even though it's not a science book. The Bible is also "historical" and "forensics" evidence of God. Now, that piece of circumstantial evidence, the existence of the universe and everything in it and creation science evidence makes it scientific evidence for God.
Upvote
0
What's the matter? Don't you believe me
I'd genuinely be happy to believe you.... So what evidence do you have?
No you don't, I couldn't care less.
Yep.
Obviously not.
It does indeed pre-date science. I wonder what science you believe is in there?
I don't know, but it seems that you are failing in objective.
Is this an attempt at mockery or flaming?
Is this an attempt at trolling? I don't believe in aliens, as I explained to you.
Well, as humans are apes, yes "I" do.
"I" also have fossils that are representative of a transition from quadrupedal to bipedal locomotion, over a long period of time, that lived millions of years ago, as you know.
Of course not, it's something you've made up in another childish attempt at mockery
So?
(FYI - You haven't got an Ark that floats, you've got an Ark that sits on floating steel barges).
As for the rest, it sounded boorish, so just skipped. Let me know if you said anything interesting
Well, first of all I pointed out that your assertion about chicken and eggs was baloney, I then asked...
"if you have any evidence that you can share with us that chickens were created fully formed from nothing (or from dust or whatever), I'd be interested to hear which "facts" back up your claims".
I will take your refusal to respond as a tacit admission that creation science has nothing.
Upvote
0
You believe that birds and fish were "created" at the same time... before land animals?
Edit: That should read....You believe that science says birds and fish were "created" at the same time... before land animals?
Upvote
0
Congratulations, you finally stumbled on some science.
The term 'circumstantial evidence' is usually reserved for legal proceedings, but it's just a label for inductive reasoning based largely on inference. In other words, it refers to evidence that indirectly indicates a fact, or supports a hypothesis. In criminal proceedings, it's often sufficient to convict the defendant if the evidence and the inferences drawn from it can be used to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Direct evidence, in contrast, is evidence that, if true, establishes with certainty the proposition for which it is advanced - for example, a CCTV record of a defendant holding a knife is direct evidence that they were holding a knife at the time of the recording; it may be circumstantial evidence of their involvement in the stabbing that same night.
Analogous concepts apply in science. Direct evidence is the evidence of the observations that have been made; if valid, it establishes with a high degree of certainty that the observed events occurred. This direct evidence may be circumstantial evidence for the proposed hypothesis or theory proposed to explain some phenomenon.
The direct (observational) evidence is 'scientific fact' (although still tentative) and is treated as circumstantial evidence for hypotheses - inferences from that direct evidence. When hypotheses are tested, the results are further circumstantial evidence for the hypothesis (e.g. failed falsifications). When sufficient circumstantial evidence has been obtained to match the level of confidence required, the hypothesis is provisionally accepted.
So, when you say, "In science, circumstantial evidence is normally used only to support other forms of evidence, so that you can figure out what happened." you're not far off - the 'other forms of evidence' (direct observational evidence) is really the circumstantial evidence used to figure out what happened, but it's pretty close; with a deduction for misplaced gloating, I'll give 5/10.
In the case of abiogenesis, even if we find several different routes by which life could have arisen and demonstrate them in the lab, and even if the results match closely with extant life processes, we still won't know for certain that is what actually happened 3+ billion years ago - it will still only be 'circumstantial evidence', but in the circumstances, that would be sufficient to confirm the hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I graduated in Human Biology (anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, anthroplogy, genetics, evolution, sociology, etc) and spent 6 years as a researcher in environmental physiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Then I moved into computing & software development.
Gibberish. Try a cold shower.
Upvote
0
And?
It's what a comparison of biblical stories with earlier myths and legends led me to believe. It's striking when you look into it - the early Christians were greener than you think, they didn't just recycle pagan festivals and rituals... it's pretty much all creative recycling.
The problem is that, as has been explained several times in these forums, God is not a viable hypothesis, being ill-defined, inexplicable, and lacking explanatory power. You might as well claim it's all evidence of 'magic'.
Try applying the abductive criteria I supplied earlier to the God hypothesis. Let me know how you get on.
Upvote
0
That would be 'spontaneous generation'. He's already made a song & dance about how Pasteur falsified spontaneous generation, so I'd be interested to hear this too
Upvote
0
- Mar 26, 2018
- 1,080
- 280
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Welp, we did start with experimental evidence as in the Miller-Urey experiment in 1953. That was based on chemical generation. However, that led to the opposite and no chemical evolution based on formation of early gases. I don't know anyone still trying to show this by find circumstantial or further experimental evidence. I think we can eliminate chemical.
So that left organic generation and this is where the evidence is being gathered. That's when it hit me, aha. They are gathering "circumstantial" evidence to make a case. Of course, the opposition is gone and these atheist scientists get the funding, so they have gone to places where no person has gone before as already been discussed. What's STILL missing is the direct or observable, testable and falsifiable evidence. Just circumstantial evidence isn't enough validation for science. Obviously, it isn't enough to show God did it as per Genesis.
Even then, here's the interesting thing, FB. God stated that he will not reveal the beginning nor the end. I think he stated that in the Bible somewhere, but for the life of me I cannot find where it was any more. Thus, I do not have the direct evidence, but only circumstantial ones. We will never discover the true origins of the universe and life nor discover when life ends and when the universe ends. That is something God said that he will keep to himself, but alas, you'll have to take my word for it. Maybe one of my fellow Christians here will be able to back me up.
My final comment is the circumstantial evidence that I have is no aliens. Not even one microbe despite all the probes and expeditions we have done so far. No ET contact. Just eyewitness accounts of those who claim alien abduction and that they're already here and the government is hiding them in a wide conspiracy. Are you going to claim those as your testimonial evidence haha?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
