Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Hammster]

Except that you have NOTHING TO SHOW that any scientist is wrong. That's the nub. You can't show that any scientist is wrong if they make a statement you disagree with.

Then don’t concern yourself with my statements.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then don’t concern yourself with my statements.

... Nah. I always live in hope that some day, someone such as yourself will actually follow through and present actual scientific evidence for why science is wrong. After all, when you argue about science, it behooves you to use science.

 

[dlamberth]

The traditional scientific method required repeatably observable evidence to prove a hypothesis
Someone would have to have been present “16 million years ago” to see the beginning of this to verify the beginning time and all of the details hypothesized
This isn’t classical, traditional science, it’s theory actually requiring much more faith to believe than the faith required to believe in the Resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ
Modern pseudo science is as religious if not more religious than the Christian Faith and actually requires much more faith than Christianity requires

That the Yellowstone hot spot burned it's way from the Oregon/Nevada border to it's present location over a very long time is not in dispute. The earth has left clear evidence of that journey of multiple eruptions along the way. The many eruption locations are well studied and mapped. There is no dispute that they are related to the Hot Spot now under Yellowstone Park. You have said that "Jesus is actually the “science”. So my question that has not been answered is "How does the Science of Jesus" account for the multiple eruptions of the Yellowstone hot spot over a long period of time. It's looking through the lens of the "Science of Jesus" that I ask my question.

 

[Hammster]

... Nah. I always live in hope that some day, someone such as yourself will actually follow through and present actual scientific evidence for why science is wrong. After all, when you argue about science, it behooves you to use science.

I live in hope that my arguments won’t be straw-manned. I’m still hoping.

 

[Hammster]

Except that you have NOTHING TO SHOW that any scientist is wrong. That's the nub. You can't show that any scientist is wrong if they make a statement you disagree with.

And that isn’t true.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And that isn’t true.

It is true, because you've not done it. You've yet to show, especially on this thread, that any scientist is wrong using science. Just saying that the Bible says the world is 6000 years old and all the other assorted hoo-ha that goes along with it does not show that any scientist who disagrees with you is wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I live in hope that my arguments won’t be straw-manned. I’m still hoping.

You use that phrase a lot. I don't think you understand what it means.

 

[Hammster]

It is true, because you've not done it. You've yet to show, especially on this thread, that any scientist is wrong using science. Just saying that the Bible says the world is 6000 years old and all the other assorted hoo-ha that goes along with it does not show that any scientist who disagrees with you is wrong.

It does, actually. What it doesn’t do is cause you to believe the truth.

 

[Hammster]

You use that phrase a lot. I don't think you understand what it means.

I do. But thanks.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It does, actually. What it doesn’t do is cause you to believe the truth.

Except that it doesn't. Science deals with science, the natural world around us. Truth as you put it is a theological statement, belief in God. Now, the Bible says one thing and the study of God's creation shows another, both of which are the word of man, and yet somehow, the Bible is given much more credence than God's own creation, the thing He built Himself for us.
Which, to try and swing this back to the OP topic is something I don't get about the creationist position: if God is so great and mighty, why is His creation put aside in favour of the Bible, a book written by fallible and ignorant men?

 

[Bradskii]

Once again ( ) I’ve not said this.

Why are you persisting with this? Astronomy tells us that the universe is billions of years old. You say that's wrong. It's positively perverse to keep denying your own posts.

 

[Bradskii]

I’ve actually stated why the science is wrong.

And yet again you say that the science is wrong. An din couple of posts you will deny that you said it. Truly bizarre...

 

[Bradskii]

...any conclusion will most likely be incorrect. So I don’t need to know a lot about astronomy to know that most conclusions are wrong because there is a faulty premise at the beginning.

Yet again, you are saying that astronomy is wrong. Yet if I point this out, you deny it.

 

[Mountainmike]

Yes I do because he has demonstrated credibility as biblical linguist . Professor Miller has apply pointed it would be a weak deity who could not have created the natural laws for abiogenesis to take place. I find it utterly bizarre that you as Christian would reject another's Cristian interpretation of the genesis out of hand. I am agnostic but if there is a creator god I can agree with Professor Miller. And as I mentioned before if abiogenesis is proven then most Christians would continue to consider their God as ultimate cause.


I agree there is no specific evidence, I disagree that it is pure speculation. There is a lot of work being done and discoveries are being made. You don't need to believe me must go to Phys.org and do search on abiogenesis.


You may be familiar with Dr. Tour's article on abiogensis with hits on many of the points you claiming. Here is a Response to Dr. Tour on Abiogenesis. It hits on the same points which you are attempting to make. But perhaps you fear learning about what experct scientists have to say.

That's rich and pure projection. Professor Miller is a biblical linguist. He is an expert in his field.


I don't find your opinions at all convincing.

Making claims that you can't back up is not convincing.

You accuse the scientists of speculation but it is you who is doing the speculation. You have made claims that have forensic proof and I have asked you several to provide reliable forensic evidence. So far nothing. Produce the evidence to then we can discuss it.

If you are a scientist perhaps you shouldn't you be discussing your opinions with active experts in the appropriate fields to demonstrate you brilliance. I suggest Peaceful Science. Presently there is an Interesting talk by Nick Lane on his research into the origin of life.

I can only repeat how utterly bizarre.

You appear to accept deductions as compelling, about the content of a book that for you holds no authority.
So If the book holds no authority, how can any deductions be compelling? Spare me the sophistry!


You seem to think there is a mass of useful science regarding speculation on abiogenesis, but it is speculation since nobody knows how where, when or what took place. they have no model or process for it.

Yet you wont even look up the forensic evidence on recent events such as eucharistic miracles, which we know when and where they happened and pathologists claim are compelling evidence of creation!

I have given you plenty to follow. Read serafinis book. It will explain the issues including DNA, although you will find haplogroups hard going, if you are new to DNA typing. You either read it or you dont.

All I can say is you are selecting what you trust in science on the basis of what you believe a priori not the evidence.
It should be the reverse of that in science.

Evidence is evidence. You must follow it where it goes, whether you like the answer or not.
There is now overwhelming evidence of veridical near death experiences, that show consciousness is not just confined to the brain.
The idea that life is just chemistry, and consciousness is a chemical process, died the same day, and with that the idea that abiogenesis can account for life, died the same day.

Christians accept the soul as a matter of belief. Good to see that like big bang the evdidence is catching up.

A gaping hole of no evidence, such as there is for abiogenesis is a gaping hole of no evidence.

The difference between theists and abiogenesis believers, is theists accept what parts of what they belief are just faith.


As for science , it is no matter to me whether you accept what I say.

You can choose to study science or not, and the philosophical underpinning of it or not.
For the first ten years studying science all assume it has all the answers, and so did I, then you go so deep you get the other side and realise it is on a lot shakier ground than you think, if you consider it as a model of reality rather than a model of observations of reality.

You still do not get the difference.

As a professional math modeller the difference between empirical and fundamental models is critical.

It took Hawking an entire career to see what was right under his nose.
Even he admitted in the end to "model dependent reality". AKA science is an empirical model of observations, not a fundamental underpinning of reality. The universal theory of everything died the very same day.

 

[Frank Robert]

I can only repeat how utterly bizarre.

You appear to accept deductions as compelling, about the content of a book that for you holds no authority.
So If the book holds no authority, how can any deductions be compelling? Spare me the sophistry!

I have no idea what book you are referring to. The only book I mentioned in my comment was the Bible.

You seem to think there is a mass of useful science regarding speculation on abiogenesis, but it is speculation since nobody knows how where, when or what took place. they have no model or process for it.

That is your opinion. For a person claiming to be a scientist you demonstrate a lack of knowledge about science research.

Yet you wont even look up the forensic evidence on recent events such as eucharistic miracles, which we know when and where they happened and pathologists claim are compelling evidence of creation!

Eucharistic miracles are not scientific evidence of the Christian or other god. There are many miraculous cures by shamans worldwide.

Miraculous Healing: A Pathologist's Comments

I have given you plenty to follow. Read serafinis book. It will explain the issues including DNA, although you will find haplogroups hard going, if you are new to DNA typing. You either read it or you dont.
I have no idea of what you talking about or who or what serafinisor or haplogroup. It is as if you are purposely being cryptic.

As for science , it is no matter to me whether you accept what I say.

Then why does it upset you?

You can choose to study science or not, and the philosophical underpinning of it or not.
For the first ten years studying science all assume it has all the answers, and so did I, then you go so deep you get the other side and realise it is on a lot shakier ground than you think, if you consider it as a model of reality rather than a model of observations of reality.

You still do not get the difference.

As a professional math modeller the difference between empirical and fundamental models is critical.

I find areas of science interesting and informative. In addition particular areas of science has given me a better understanding of my patients and how best to work with them. While you may have had some negative experiences with science, you appear to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[kiwimac]

You have a handbook?

I have a book written by a geologist who actively confronts AIG Australia about their beliefs. It is not a "handbook" merely a useful aide memoir.

 

[Bradskii]

Eucharistic miracles are not scientific evidence of the Christian or other god. There are many miraculous cures by shamans worldwide.

Just as an interesting aside, do you know what blood types these so-called Eucharistic miracles are? Invariably type AB (it's a miracle!). But do you know when type AB first emerged? Around the 16th century. And as so few people have AB, the chances are vanishingly small that they are indeed all AB. And, from here: Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear

'But if blood of any type tends to lose its antibodies over time....then it would eventually come to appear to be type AB blood, since as the Wikipedia diagram above indicates, type AB blood has no antibodies'.

 

[Hammster]

Except that it doesn't. Science deals with science, the natural world around us. Truth as you put it is a theological statement, belief in God. Now, the Bible says one thing and the study of God's creation shows another, both of which are the word of man, and yet somehow, the Bible is given much more credence than God's own creation, the thing He built Himself for us.
Which, to try and swing this back to the OP topic is something I don't get about the creationist position: if God is so great and mighty, why is His creation put aside in favour of the Bible, a book written by fallible and ignorant men?

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
— 2 Timothy 3:16-17

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
— Hebrews 1:1-2

 

[Hammster]

Why are you persisting with this? Astronomy tells us that the universe is billions of years old. You say that's wrong. It's positively perverse to keep denying your own posts.

I’m not denying my own posts.

 

[Hammster]

And yet again you say that the science is wrong. A din couple of posts you will deny that you said it. Truly bizarre...

It’s bizarre that you keep twisting my arguments.