Age of the World

[Kayachee]

No. Nobody is throwing any logic conclusion out. All logic conclusions demonstrate the wisdom of God. This includes all evidences presented by paleontology. The only thing wrong with paleontology is its "interpretation" which is, sometimes, not logical. One such example is the idea of evolution.

how is the idea of evolution anymore illogical than 1 single person creating everything, and since then, no-one has seen this being again. matter of fact, no-one has seen this being ever.

 

[Paulos23]

No. Nobody is throwing any logic conclusion out.

Good.

All logic conclusions demonstrate the wisdom of God.

And there it goes out the window....

This includes all evidences presented by paleontology. The only thing wrong with paleontology is its "interpretation" which is, sometimes, not logical. One such example is the idea of evolution.

How can you say that? When there is no evidence for a world wide flood, no evidence for an eden, and plenty of evidence for an old earth and the gradual change of organisms.

But what the Bible says are much superior than any logic conclusions

how?

(those seemingly illogical part. Noticed that the Bible never says the evaluational origin of human being).

So because it is not in the Bible is didn't happen? Despite all the evidence? That is ignoring evidence. That is blinding yourself to reality. You don't have to throw out God completely, but to take the word of people 3000+ years ago over the evidence we find in the earth and life around us is the hight of blinding yourself for your faith.

Of course, some Bible verses verify many logic conclusions as we know them.

Like what? I bet there isn't one.

 

[Paulos23]

Twist and ignore this.

Oh good grief. Haven't you been torn up enough with that?

 

[BrainHertz]

Not at all. I am talking about science in the Bible, not faith in the Bible.

If I illustrated:

The Bible says this and this.
Now the current science says that and that.
And "this" is obviously related to "that".
So, what said in the Bible is scientific.

Do you buy the argument?

No.

Science is a method, not an answer.

 

[Chalnoth]

Not at all. I am talking about science in the Bible, not faith in the Bible.

If I illustrated:

The Bible says this and this.
Now the current science says that and that.
And "this" is obviously related to "that".
So, what said in the Bible is scientific.

Do you buy the argument?

No. Not a single one of these things, that is in any way interesting, was found in the Bible before it was found through the process of science. They're always post-hoc reinterpretations.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Oh good grief. Haven't you been torn up enough with that?

"For AV so loved the sound of his own voice that he gave his only begotten idea -- again and again and again..." -- Poe 3:16

 

[FishFace]

Twist and ignore this.

F.

 

[AV1611VET]

"For AV so loved the sound of his own voice that he gave his only begotten idea -- again and again and again..." -- Poe 3:16

LOL --- coming from someone who has his own law named after him, I'd say that sounds --- shall we say, ironic?

The only difference though, is that I showed your law to be an affront to you guys - not us.

 

[juvenissun]

how is the idea of evolution anymore illogical than 1 single person creating everything, and since then, no-one has seen this being again. matter of fact, no-one has seen this being ever.

No. It is not. Both are illogical.

 

[Nathan Poe]

LOL --- coming from someone who has his own law named after him, I'd say that sounds --- shall we say, ironic?

Perhaps, but my Law has a purpose.

Whereas your nonsense challenge -- excuse me, I meant "Apple Challenge," has shown that, if I were a praying man, I would pray that you would never be selected to serve jury duty -- where actual evidence is required to prove a point.

Fortunately, such prayer would be unnecessary, because voir dire would eliminate you from ever being in such a position to determine another man's fate based on "evidence."

The only difference though, is that I showed your law to be an affront to you guys - not us.

I suppose, in the spirit of your "Apple Challenge" you neither have nor want to show any evidence to support this asinine claim.

 

[juvenissun]

Quote:

Of course, some Bible verses verify many logic conclusions as we know them.

Like what? I bet there isn't one.

In fact, there are many. You do not know them.

 

[juvenissun]

No.

Science is a method, not an answer.

Methods lead to a conclusion (answer or not). We are talking about conclusions. Would that be science or scientific?

 

[AV1611VET]

I suppose, in the spirit of your "Apple Challenge" you neither have nor want to show any evidence to support this asinine claim.

Um --- first of all --- my challenge is for you to show it --- not me.

And second of all, due to repeated requests, I actually did answer my own challenge with --- dare it say it --- physical evidence. And more than once.

You must have been absent those days.

 

[juvenissun]

No. Not a single one of these things, that is in any way interesting, was found in the Bible before it was found through the process of science. They're always post-hoc reinterpretations.

In science, reinterpret old conclusions is a very common and valuable process. Why can't it apply to Biblical descriptions?

Also, what is the test of any "prediction"? Is the evaluation of any prediction also reinterpretation?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Um --- first of all --- my challenge is for you to show it --- not me.

Neither I nor anyone else has the least bit of interest in doing your work for you to prove your own delusions to yourself.

And second of all, due to repeated requests, I actually did answer my own challenge with --- dare it say it --- physical evidence. And more than once.

If you are so obsessed with producing something ex nihilo, AV, start with a fact.

You must have been absent those days.

Little point being present on a day the teacher didn't teach.

 

[Chalnoth]

In science, reinterpret old conclusions is a very common and valuable process. Why can't it apply to Biblical descriptions?

Sometimes, yes. But good theories also make predictions of the outcomes of future experiments. Why is it that this seems to be impossible when talking about the Bible's "predictions"?

Also, what is the test of any "prediction"? Is the evaluation of any prediction also reinterpretation?

Nope. Either a prediction comes out to be true or it doesn't. Any "reinterpretation" is an indication that the prediction was wrong, for one reason or another.

 

[FishFace]

Um --- first of all --- my challenge is for you to show it --- not me.

And second of all, due to repeated requests, I actually did answer my own challenge with --- dare it say it --- physical evidence. And more than once.

You must have been absent those days.

You have physical evidence of creation? Hot-diggedy! Oh wait, you meant that rather weak claim about the total mass/energy in the universe. Since that is, and will, with fair certainty, forever remain, epistemologically unaccessible to us, it doesn't really work as evidence, does it.
You know, for potential evidence to "count" it has to actually be possible to obtain it.
Although, if you want to press the point go ahead - then we can claim you don't have the necessary evidence to show that the universe was created ex nihilo.

Oh, and on "the point" of your challenge. The point wasn't to get us to do anything, AV. It was rhetoric - pure and simple - you didn't want an answer, you just wanted us to say, "Oh, ha ha, very clever AV I see what you did there, I am now a young age* creationist" Of course, this "point" was silly and, because you were unwilling and unable to replace your rhetoric with actual argumentation, your thread fell flat on its face - each of the three times you posted it.
We answered your challenge truthfully, AV, but when presented with a challenge of a similar nature, you suddenly become less talkative. Perhaps that's because you know that unlike in your thread, where it's just rhetoric, you know that I'm not just going to listen to your answer in silence, but actually call you out on the inevitable incoherence and contradictions.

*Substitute Young-old-embedded-age-no-history-nonsensical-contradictory if you really want to.

 

[Paulos23]

In fact, there are many. You do not know them.

Then why don't you list a few?

 

[Loudmouth]

In science, reinterpret old conclusions is a very common and valuable process.

Old conclusions are not reinterpretted. Old data can be reinterpretted, but conclusions are not. They are either right or wrong.

Also, what is the test of any "prediction"? Is the evaluation of any prediction also reinterpretation?

Every scientific theory must make risky predictions, things that will be found if the theory is true. If these predictions turn out to be false then the theory is false. There is no reinterpretation.

In the specific case of Tiktaalik rosae, the predictions made by the theory of evolution were found in spades. The theory predicted that there must be a transitional fossil that spans the gap between lobe finned fish and terrestrial tetrapods such as Ichtyostega and Acanthostega. T. rosae filled that gap both morphologically and chronologically just as the theory predicted.

Also, the theory of evolution predicts one overarching characterstic of life. It states that complex life should fall into a nested hierarchy. This prediction is tested every time a new fossil is found and every time a new gene is sequenced. This prediction is accurate time after time after time. Creationism makes no such prediction about the pattern of homology.

 

[InnocentOdion]

Didn't you know the world is only 800 years old?


Speaking of this, I was watching something on TV about the Shroud of Turin (BBC: "Shroud of Turin: Material Evidence") being younger than it is (by over 1,000+ years) because 'carbon 14 dating' when it was used, was inaccurate as the carbon dioxide staying in the air, if it covered 2% of the shroud, would have changed the age by that much! They then showed some pictures of the shroud from earlier manuscripts.


So, how accurate is C14 testing anyway? If you believe it is, how many times do you need to do it to make it accurate (as was seen with this, it is an earlier item, forgery or non-forgery that isn't the case, it's a lot earlier because they have an exactly the same picture in an earlier book in Hungary or somewhere). I'm not a YECer, but I was curious. Maybe it should be in a new thread..


YECers, have fun.