Age of the World

[juvenissun]

You're not going to tell me what the science of the Bible is because there is none. If there is, produce it.

And I have not missed the Biblical message. I have heard it, and it is lacking in any merit.

Exactly because of this attitude, you are not educable in Biblical knowledge. If I told you the Bible says 1+1=2, you will not accept it.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Exactly because of this attitude, you are not educable in Biblical knowledge. If I told you the Bible says 1+1=2, you will not accept it.

And exactly this attitude is why nobody takes any of your 'scientific' arguments seriously. Provide EVIDENCE for something, Juvenissun. Why is this hard to understand? EVIDENCE your arguments.

 

[juvenissun]

It isn't meaningful to ask whether a conclusion is "science" without knowing the method used to arrive at it.

If I used voodoo to "predict" the outcome of a die roll and happened to get the correct answer, would you consider my prediction to be scientific?

It is not that simple. The so-called conclusion has scientific content and can be explained by a modern scientific model. If your conclusion qualified, yes, I take it as a scientific conclusion.

By the way, the voodoo things could be very scientific, just like issues of ghost, UFO, etc.

 

[juvenissun]

And exactly this attitude is why nobody takes any of your 'scientific' arguments seriously. Provide EVIDENCE for something, Juvenissun. Why is this hard to understand? EVIDENCE your arguments.

You won't take the evidence. I am smart enough to know that.

 

[juvenissun]

You might not be wrong, but you'd be ill-informed. Lots of coloured things are clear, so interpreting them to mean the same thing is done at your own peril.

Something that is colourless need not be clear. Something that is clear need not be colourless.

But something which is clear is colorless.

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly because of this attitude, you are not educable in Biblical knowledge. If I told you the Bible says 1+1=2, you will not accept it.

How is Biblical knowledge different from regular, run-of-the-mill knowledge?

I have seen people go down this road before. They preface evidence, knowledge, and science with other words for some strange reason. There is "spiritual evidence", "biblical knowledge", and "creation science". It seems to me that in adding words people are tacitly admitting that they don't have evidence, knowledge, or science on their side. They only want to be able to use the words to make it look like they have an argument.

Also, if 1+1=2 then you should be able to demonstrate it without ever referencing the Bible. If there was a recent global flood then you should be able to point to the evidence without ever mentioning the Bible. The same for special creation and a young earth.

As for scientific interpretations, the types of interpretations should follow the following rules:

1. Consistent with all known evidence.
2. Propose a testable mechanism.
3. Make predictions as to what should and should not be observed if the interpretation is accurate.

That's it.

 

[juvenissun]

Rofecoxib produced side-effects that were nearly impossible to duplicate in a lab. Its makers did not lie or make erroneous predictions about Rofecoxib's benefits; they simply did not yet know about its drawbacks when the FDA approved. And by what method do you think they came to know about those flaws?

In any case, I fail to see what a pharmacology anecdote has to do with evolutionary biology.

That is what I mean. They do not know for sure, but they said they know. Evolutionist does the same.
Creationist said they do not know, but they know who knows.

 

[Loudmouth]

But something which is clear is colorless.

Have you ever seen those old-fashioned 3-D glasses with the red and blue filters? Those lenses are clear but are not colorless.

 

[Chalnoth]

These are all political, not scientific. I know it, you know it.

Political? How, precisely? The video I showed you is about nothing but the evidence. As is the essay. Coincidentally, both the author and the speaker were Christians.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

You won't take the evidence. I am smart enough to know that.

This is a poor tactic. All you're saying here is that you don't have the evidence to begin with.

We present evidence to you all the time, even when we 'know' you won't take it, because we know that we have the evidence and that it is true.

If you have it, post it so that it can be SEEN that we won't take it, and you can say 'haha, look I was right'.

Then I, along with everybody else, will look like a fool and you can bask in your own glory. How does that sound?

But until you present the evidence, your arguments and indignation are useless.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Exactly because of this attitude, you are not educable in Biblical knowledge. If I told you the Bible says 1+1=2, you will not accept it.

Wow, that's pretty gutsy to tell someone that they won't accept something just because you say the Bible says it.

Are you a mind-reader?

You see the fact that the Bible says 1+1=2 (I don't recall that it actually does, but it may be in "Numbers" somewhere ) the point is that it can be verified as true, even without the use of the Bible.

So if the Bible makes a claim that you feel can only have been supernaturally inspired or written by someone with information not available to humanity at the time it was written, then surely this will be verifiable today.

Regardless of who reads a truth, a truth is a truth. If it is really true then it will be so patently obvious that to deny it takes more effort than to accept it and requires the denial of the sum of the data.

And please don't "hide" behind the idea that the people you are talking to are somehow "uneducable" in the Bible. Most of us have read the bible and are quite capable of understanding what is written. If there is truth to be found, then truth will out.

(Oh, yes, and by-the-way, I know there are many true statements in the Bible. Just as there are many true statements in the Kalevala or Stephen King's "The Stand".)

 

[Skaloop]

But something which is clear is colorless.

Not at all. A glass of cranberry juice is clear, but it is red. The previous mention of 3D glasses is another example. Stained-glass windows are clear but have a variety of colours.

 

[pgp_protector]

But something which is clear is colorless.

You could say that Some Things that are clear are colorless, but not that everything that is Clear is Colorless.

 

[Vene]

These are all political, not scientific. I know it, you know it.

Do you even know what science is?

 

[Loudmouth]

You could say that Some Things that are clear are colorless, but not that everything that is Clear is Colorless.

Perhaps it would be easier to point out that the opposite of clear is opaque.

 

[pgp_protector]

Perhaps it would be easier to point out that the opposite of clear is opaque.

But then we have to get into what frequency / frequencies is it opaque to.

 

[Loudmouth]

But then we have to get into what frequency / frequencies is it opaque to.

The assumed wavelengths are those of visible light, which are 400 to 700 nm.

 

[thaumaturgy]

The assumed wavelengths are those of visible light, which are 400 to 700 nm.

Why limit God so? Don't you believe that God can see in a vastly wider range of wavelengths?

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

Why limit God so? Don't you believe that God can see in a vastly wider range of wavelengths?

I wonder what gamma rays would look like. Or X-rays. Or microwaves, for that matter...

 

[TheBear]

I wonder what gamma rays would look like. Or X-rays. Or microwaves, for that matter...