35 year evolution experiment *FAIL*

[gluadys]

No? What about the abundance of evidence saying it is impossible for a human to walk on water?

It would be inductive reasoning to say that Jesus could not walk on water because we have no experience of a human walking on water. But inductive reasoning is always open to disproof by the exception.

Seeing 10,000 white swans may lead you to believe all swans are white----until you see a black one. Seeing 10 million humans fail to walk on water may lead you to believe no human can walk on water----but it is not evidence against the possibility that one man did.

 

[Cabal]

This makes me chuckle, when you think of it, everything about God is illogical. The double standards by which TE operates is phenomenal, as it is okay for God to part the seas, walk on water, turn water to wine, yet when it comes to creation He is forced to adhere to rigidly, naturalistic laws and work in conjunction with what our "logic" dictates.

You've made several category errors here. Firstly, creation is a somewhat different beast to the other miracles in the Bible, as it was planet-wide, and we can observe the object of the miracle (earth and the cosmos) today. Something like walking on water were one-offs involving something that we cannot analyse today as it would not leave any lasting traces. Now, one could argue that no-one observes people walking on water for the most part, but as gluadys just pointed out, such inductive reasoning can be refuted by a single case, and such a case exists.

Secondly, TE does not claim that God has to "adhere" to laws. It claims that God INSTITUTED them and then used the laws to create.

By the way, creationism does not demand God creating all things by blinking them into existence. Yes, let's take one definition and apply it across the board...shall we?

What other definition suits the literalistic mindset? Even the merest hint that it might have been symbolic is enough to be denounced from the pulpit in some quarters.

I lament over the fact that this term "creationism" has been stigmatized by those who attempt to rationalize away the super-natural with science, both of which are not compatible with each other.

In your opinion only. Just because you can't reconcile the two because you insist on strawmanning TE, don't give those who can a hard time.

Truthfully, TE's should be considered "creation"-ists as well, as they (along with every other believer) hold to the truth that God created, they just differ in their beliefs as to how.

I have no beef with creationism in and of itself - and I'd be happy to identify with them as an evolutionary creationist as soon as their loudest members stop trying to tell scientists (including other Christians who are scientists, like myself) how to do their jobs and denying that we are Christians. Till then, not interested.

Creationism can also simply represent other methods or mechanisms of creation God used to create all things, but of which cannot be known or defined by man.

This is just mysticism, frankly.

And seeing how God consistently acts in the super-natural throughout all of scripture, it is a much more fitting ideal.

Yeah, because creating an entire system of functioning and interconnected laws of nature and use them to create is so much less impressive....

 

[Jig]

It would be inductive reasoning to say that Jesus could not walk on water because we have no experience of a human walking on water. But inductive reasoning is always open to disproof by the exception.

Seeing 10,000 white swans may lead you to believe all swans are white----until you see a black one. Seeing 10 million humans fail to walk on water may lead you to believe no human can walk on water----but it is not evidence against the possibility that one man did.

This doesn't make any sense. You know good and well that we can scientifically study the structure and capacities of liquid water. We don't have to even witness one person fail to safely and definitively determine it is impossible for a 180 pound man to walk on water.

Jesus' walking on water was not a natural event, it was a supernatural one. Therefore, I'm not overly shocked to find out the evidence is against it. Your comment almost makes it sound like there could be a natural explanation.

 

[Assyrian]

So how does science say a supernatural event is impossible?

 

[Jig]

So how does science say a supernatural event is impossible?

First off, I never made such a statement. However, science can't make such a statement either. Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world - not any supernatural ambit. Science requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events. Therefore, science cannot account for supernatural events. It cannot predict them. It cannot test for them. It cannot explain them. In fact, scientific conclusions are blind to them.

This is what makes science a limited enterprise. It's scope is only within the natural realm. If a supernatural event in the unobserved past occurred and left a fingerprint, this fingerprint would not be recognized as supernatural. Instead it would be interpreted as having a natural explanation.

This means science would provide wrong information if it ever is required to understand an event/condition that was/is supernatural in nature.

 

[Assyrian]

First off, I never made such a statement. However, science can't make such a statement either. Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world - not any supernatural ambit. Science requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events. Therefore, science cannot account for supernatural events. It cannot predict them. It cannot test for them. It cannot explain them. In fact, scientific conclusions are blind to them.

This is what makes science a limited enterprise. It's scope is only within the natural realm. If a supernatural event in the unobserved past occurred and left a fingerprint, this fingerprint would not be recognized as supernatural. Instead it would be interpreted as having a natural explanation.

This means science would provide wrong information if it ever is required to understand an event/condition that was/is supernatural in nature.

No you didn't make that statement. What you did instead was show the huge hole in your argument. Science does not show us Jesus didn't walk on water, it just shows us what happens naturally when people step onto the surface of deep water. Science cannot say what would happen if instead of being a natural event it was supernatural, it only tells us about the natural consequences. As a result science cannot say what would have happened when God's only begotten son stepped onto the water.

On the other hand, if science has the evidence available, it can tell us what happened, or what did not happen. For example if a body washed up on the shores by Capernaum, with its lungs full of water and a dental record that matched the missing carpenter from Nazareth, the local pathologist could establish without any difficulty that Jesus had not successfully walked across the lake. Just as it can tell us the earth is more than 6000 years old and that there wasn't a global flood. It cannot speculate whether Jesus would have been able to walk on water using his divine power.

 

[gluadys]

Jesus' walking on water was not a natural event, it was a supernatural one. Therefore, I'm not overly shocked to find out the evidence is against it. Your comment almost makes it sound like there could be a natural explanation.

According to Jesus, the "natural" explanation was that he had faith. Remember he invited Peter to come walk with him, and it was only when he let his fear overcome his faith that Peter failed.

For all we know, perhaps there is a natural explanation. "Supernatural" is one theoretical explanation for the event. "Unknown natural explanation" is another. Science has no way of distinguishing between these theories, unless and until it finds a natural explanation. Of course, in that case it is no longer "unknown".

All science can really say is that it is not normal for a human to be able to walk on water. But science does not say that extraordinary events never happen. So there is no evidence that this extraordinary event didn't happen. And most probably, given our current state of knowledge, the supernatural explanation is the best one.

 

[MichaelHelp]

A single experiment can't confirm or deny the existence of evolution.

 

[Cabal]

A single experiment can't confirm or deny the existence of evolution.

Confirm, no. Deny, yes. Falsifiability in science can hinge on single sets of observations. By contrast, theories cannot be confirmed to be absolutely true but they can be shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[MichaelHelp]

Confirm, no. Deny, yes. Falsifiability in science can hinge on single sets of observations. By contrast, theories cannot be confirmed to be absolutely true but they can be shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt.

So this single experiment denied the existence of evolution? I don't think so.

 

[Cabal]

So this single experiment denied the existence of evolution? I don't think so.

Not what I claimed - just pointing out an error.

 

[MichaelHelp]

Not what I claimed - just pointing out an error.

If you reread what you just posted you will see it is exactly what you claimed.

Can a single experiment confirm or deny the existence of evolution? You said "yes" to the deny part.

 

[Cabal]

If you reread what you just posted you will see it is exactly what you claimed.

Can a single experiment confirm or deny the existence of evolution? You said "yes" to the deny part.

And you went and changed "a single experiment" to "this single experiment" - so in other words, not even close to what you originally claimed.

Go be deliberately obtuse somewhere else.

 

[MichaelHelp]

And you went and changed "a single experiment" to "this single experiment" - so in other words, not even close to what you originally claimed.

Go be deliberately obtuse somewhere else.

I didn't change any of my posts. If you look you'll see none of them say the posts were edited.

Then again that doesn't fit into your fantasy land so I guess it must not be true

 

[Cabal]

I didn't change any of my posts. If you look you'll see none of them say the posts were edited.

Then again that doesn't fit into your fantasy land so I guess it must not be true

Not even close, yet again....

A single experiment can't confirm or deny the existence of evolution.

So this single experiment denied the existence of evolution? I don't think so.

Run along now.

 

[MichaelHelp]

Not even close, yet again....


Run along now.

Right, so they weren't edited... because like i said if there were edited it would state such an edit occured and you have yet to prove that because you are incapable of doing so. Thanks for confirming what i stated

 

[matthewgar]

No, atavisms can't bring dinosaurs back. But Jeff Goldblum could!

heh actually with help they could maybe, there is that chickensaurus project that is trying to chemically regress a chicken embryo and activate the remnant DNA and create a more dinosaur like chicken.

 

[shernren]

heh actually with help they could maybe, there is that chickensaurus project that is trying to chemically regress a chicken embryo and activate the remnant DNA and create a more dinosaur like chicken.

But don't we already have those? I think they're called turkeys. (At least, that's what it's always seemed like to me when I see their gigantinormous drumsticks on the supermarket shelves.)

 

[matthewgar]

But don't we already have those? I think they're called turkeys. (At least, that's what it's always seemed like to me when I see their gigantinormous drumsticks on the supermarket shelves.)

Heh this is a attempt to bring them back closer to their raptor like ancestors, though they still be closer to chickens, not sure whats been up with the project havn't checked recently, just read the book, "How to build a dinosaur." sounds intriguing :> And no dangers other them moral.

 

[Smidlee]

So this single experiment denied the existence of evolution? I don't think so.

A multitude of contradicting evidence can't falsify evolution so no doubt even this lab study can't touch it either. The only way to falsify ToE is an act of God.