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

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then you haven’t followed as well as you think.

Then maybe how about you answer the question then. Because all I've seen you give as an answer is that "The Bible doesn't say that" and that's it.

But you saying "any science that ignores that the earth was created approximately 6000 years ago, and gives us ages that are far beyond that timeframe, is incorrect" is still arguing against science. That's a fact. You have yet to answer how saying the above counts as not arguing against science. Or is there some special science that only you are privy to?

 

[driewerf]

As much as you are, I suppose. I doubt you are an astronomer. I doubt you’ve done the primary research. So anything you put forth is someone else’s words.

I am indeed not an astronomer. But I know enough about it to be able to formulate my points myself. All my posts contain my own words. I don't anser with;" read Judith Irwin's 'Astrophysics."
So, on the question:
What presupposition is there behind this interpretation do you think? How is that wrong? How do you know what that presupposition is and how do you know this to be wrong? On what ground do you pretend you can correct astronomers when you do know anything about astronomy?

Are we going to have an answer?

 

[driewerf]

The crime is sin against a Holy God.

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
— Romans 3:23

You aren’t forced to love Him. You also aren’t forced to hate Him.

I don't do any of both. Just I don't love or hate Voldemort; The Joker or Sergeant Garcia.

 

[JohnGill]

I have a question. The Yellowstone Hot spot burned it's way from the Oregon/Nevada border, across Idaho and to it's present location. As the link below shows, geologist have shown that trek as a 16 million year still on going event. The varius explosive locations are well known and mapped. My question is about the Science of Jesus. How does the Science of Jesus account for the many million year journey of the Yellowstone Hot Spot?

View attachment 328476

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

 

[Hammster]

Then maybe how about you answer the question then. Because all I've seen you give as an answer is that "The Bible doesn't say that" and that's it.

But you saying "any science that ignores that the earth was created approximately 6000 years ago, and gives us ages that are far beyond that timeframe, is incorrect" is still arguing against science. That's a fact. You have yet to answer how saying the above counts as not arguing against science. Or is there some special science that only you are privy to?

It’s not arguing against science. It’s arguing against science that’s done poorly by not taking all variables into account.

 

[Hammster]

I am indeed not an astronomer. But I know enough about it to be able to formulate my points myself. All my posts contain my own words. I don't anser with;" read Judith Irwin's 'Astrophysics."

You are just regurgitating what someone else says. I’m not being critical of it, since it’s what most of us do.

So, on the question:
What presupposition is there behind this interpretation do you think? How is that wrong? How do you know what that presupposition is and how do you know this to be wrong? On what ground do you pretend you can correct astronomers when you do know anything about astronomy?

Are we going to have an answer?

I’ll try to sum this up once again. When you start with a faulty premise, 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.

 

[Hammster]

I don't do any of both. Just I don't love or hate Voldemort; The Joker or Sergeant Garcia.

The difference is that God isn’t fictional.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It’s not arguing against science. It’s arguing against science that’s done poorly by not taking all variables into account.

Except that you've not show that to be the case. You've certainly said it, but you've never shown it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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

Except that's really not true in the slightest.

 

[Frank Robert]

I find it utterly bizarre. You appear to put more weight on millers bible apologetics for abiogenesis , than you do on present day forensic science applied to present day visible samples.

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.

My position on abiogenesis I made clear. It is pure speculation.
1/ there’s no evidence of when, where, what or how it happened, and it is a staggeringly complex problem
2/ simple logic shows it has problems with irreducible complexity, so how did it make the leap?

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.

3/ have you noticed all the attempts to mimic parts of it are intelligent design by phds who still can’t do even
Parts of it!

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.

it is fascinating such as miller acting as scientist can believe in a void of knowledge, instead of classifying it as pure conjecture.

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

My opinions come from a lifelong study of science and professional use of it, including quantum effects, which inevitably leads to a lot of hard questions on nature of reality, and our window on it, most of which you would not understand. But Try it and see. Read books on quantum reality. When you understand them, They will wreck your view of scientific model used as a kind of philosophical crutch. Even hawking saw the problem in the end, with his “ model dependent reality” wrecking philosophically for

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.

 

[driewerf]

The difference is that God isn’t fictional.

Prove it.

 

[driewerf]

I’ll try to sum this up once again. When you start with a faulty premise, 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.

That is repeating what you already said. Well, you replaced supposition by premise.
So again, what are these premises? How do you now they are incorrect? I have lost track of how many times I have asked it, but for making grand declamations, you don't seem to be able to support your statements.

Hammster:
It’s not arguing against science. It’s arguing against science that’s done poorly by not taking all variables into account.

And again, you make vague insinuations without substantiating them: what are these variables that aren't taken into account? How do they influence the outcome? How do you know that they are relevant and professional astronomers not? And how does it come that a wide variety of sciences is so flawed that they keep on finding things much older than 6.000 to 10.000 years (sciences like astronomy, geology, glaciology, archaeology, paleontology, genetics and so on)? But you know them all to be wrong.

 

[Hammster]

Except that you've not show that to be the case. You've certainly said it, but you've never shown it.

It’s fairly obvious, even in this thread.

 

[Hammster]

Prove it.

Outside of the fact that you’ve concerned yourself about a threat? Okay, what would accept as evidence?

 

[Hammster]

That is repeating what you already said. Well, you replaced supposition by premise.
So again, what are these premises? How do you now they are incorrect? I have lost track of how many times I have asked it, but for making grand declamations, you don't seem to be able to support your statements.



And again, you make vague insinuations without substantiating them: what are these variables that aren't taken into account? How do they influence the outcome? How do you know that they are relevant and professional astronomers not? And how does it come that a wide variety of sciences is so flawed that they keep on finding things much older than 6.000 to 10.000 years (sciences like astronomy, geology, glaciology, archaeology, paleontology, genetics and so on)? But you know them all to be wrong.

Seriously. I’ve covered this already.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It’s fairly obvious, even in this thread.

No, because you've never shown it. It is definitely obvious that your religious beliefs in a literal Bible prevent you from even imagining the world being several billion years old because, for some reason, the Bible is more important than God's creation.

 

[driewerf]

Outside of the fact that you’ve concerned yourself about a threat? Okay, what would accept as evidence?

Just give your best shot, and we will see.

 

[Hammster]

No, because you've never shown it. It is definitely obvious that your religious beliefs in a literal Bible prevent you from even imagining the world being several billion years old because, for some reason, the Bible is more important than God's creation.

I can imagine it. But that’s all it would be.

 

[Hammster]

Just give your best shot, and we will see.

I have, but you’ve rejected it. So what would you accept?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I can imagine it. But that’s all it would be.

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.