At times like this...

[OldWiseGuy]

It is a fundamental theory of biology, that's all.

Let's stay with that for a moment then. How has the ToE, as applied to biology, solved the biological problems we face?

 

[Ophiolite]

Are you saying that the ToE is not the foundation and basis of modern science?

It has nothing to do with cosmology.
It has nothing to do with astrophysics.
It has nothing to do with geology (barring palaeontology, which supplies it with data, not the other way round.)
It has nothing to do with nuclear physics.
It has nothing to do with planetology.
It has nothing to do with quantum mechanics (barring the insights QM provides to molecular biology)
Etc.

I don't see the point you are tying to make here.

I am asking you, and had been for a couple of preceding posts, what your point was.

 

[Speedwell]

Let's stay with that for a moment then. How has the ToE, as applied to biology, solved the biological problems we face?

First we have to clear up a misapprehension you seem to have that the ToE might apply to some other field than biology.

 

[Ophiolite]

Let's stay with that for a moment then. How has the ToE, as applied to biology, solved the biological problems we face?

Strawman alert! Ignorant or deceptive use of past tense. Honest question would be "How might the TOE help us to solve . . . .etc. "

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It has nothing to do with cosmology.
It has nothing to do with astrophysics.
It has nothing to do with geology (barring palaeontology, which supplies it with data, not the other way round.)
It has nothing to do with nuclear physics.
It has nothing to do with planetology.
It has nothing to do with quantum mechanics (barring the insights QM provides to molecular biology)
Etc.

I am asking you, and had been for a couple of preceding posts, what your point was.

It seems then that the ToE operates in a very small, select area of science. So why does the term appear in just about every science article about every scientific discipline?

My point is that it isn't helping us much with some very pressing problems, particularly climate change?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Strawman alert! Ignorant or deceptive use of past tense. Honest question would be "How might the TOE help us to solve . . . .etc. "

I think that ship has sailed.

 

[Speedwell]

It seems then that the ToE operates in a very small, select area of science. So why does the term appear in just about every science article about every scientific discipline?

My point is that it isn't helping us much with some very pressing problems, particularly climate change?

It's not much use in nuclear physics, either. I wonder why?

 

[Ophiolite]

I think that ship has sailed.

That is explicit acknowledgement that you deliberately use strawmen arguments, thereby dishonestly seeking to trick and deceive members. Or is it just more of your accidental (?) obfuscation?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That is explicit acknowledgement that you deliberately use strawmen arguments, thereby dishonestly seeking to trick and deceive members. Or is it just more of your accidental (?) obfuscation?

We only have the past to look to for evidence, the future is just speculation. To revisit my dirty lakes example, a once beautiful lake is allowed to turn into a swamp so scientists can study the evolution of a small "newly discovered biological community" (actual description) lurking amidst the slime.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That is explicit acknowledgement that you deliberately use strawmen arguments, thereby dishonestly seeking to trick and deceive members. Or is it just more of your accidental (?) obfuscation?

It seems you are trying to make me into the straw man.

That said isn't our whole society built upon deception and obfuscation (let everyone beware)?

 

[Jamdoc]

As far as I can see - in this instance, quite far - @Subduction Zone was not talking about God, but about one interpretation of Biblical Scriptures describing the suggested relationship between God and Man. Does this mean you only accept theological arguments or scriptural analyses, if they are offered by a Christian? (And if so do you consider such arguments and analyses equally sound if they come from a non-Baptist?)

@Subduction Zone please advise if I have misinterpreted the thrust of your post.

Your religion says agnostic, meaning you don't know, you're in unbelief. Theirs say atheist meaning they know for sure they believe there is no God.

 

[Speedwell]

Your religion says agnostic, meaning you don't know, you're in unbelief. Theirs say atheist meaning they know for sure they believe there is no God.

Nevertheless, the original point is well taken: many atheists in this forum know more about theology and the Bible than the general run of creationists.

 

[Ophiolite]

Your religion says agnostic, meaning you don't know, you're in unbelief. Theirs say atheist meaning they know for sure they believe there is no God.

Two separate points:
1. Their atheist position does not exclude them from knowledge of theology. So would be good enough to answer my questions, repeated here for your convenience: Does this mean you only accept theological arguments or scriptural analyses, if they are offered by a Christian? (And if so do you consider such arguments and analyses equally sound if they come from a non-Baptist?)
2. I am an agnostic, but I am atheistic in regard to the Christian God.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Nevertheless, the original point is well taken: many atheists in this forum know more about theology and the Bible than the general run of creationists.

That's because atheists here have diligently observed Christians and the bible and are often better able to present their arguments.

 

[Speedwell]

That's because atheists here have diligently observed Christians and the bible and are often better able to present their arguments.

My take on it is that creationists really don't know very much about the Bible or theology.

 

[Jamdoc]

Two separate points:
1. Their atheist position does not exclude them from knowledge of theology. So would be good enough to answer my questions, repeated here for your convenience: Does this mean you only accept theological arguments or scriptural analyses, if they are offered by a Christian? (And if so do you consider such arguments and analyses equally sound if they come from a non-Baptist?)
2. I am an agnostic, but I am atheistic in regard to the Christian God.

It's questions of faith, and if you have no faith, then it's like speaking different languages, we're going to come to an impasse.

Do I take a literal interpretation on everything? No.
I'm not young earth, but I do have to acknowledge that most scientific estimates for the age of things are based on an assumption: That there is no God.
most young earth creationists base their timeline on another assumption of their own: That the bible gives a definite timeline with no gaps. They assume Adam sinned basically the same day he was created.
so I am actually agnostic on that question, as to the age of the world and universe.
I think we can probably use ice cores to count back a bare minimum age that is much older than 6000 years, but once we get into radiocarbon dating we're using an assumption that we know the original amount of C14 that was present, tying that with the assumption that there is no God and that this all happened on its own with no cause, it leads to an exaggerated age.
I'm also a theistic evolutionist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's questions of faith, and if you have no faith, then it's like speaking different languages, we're going to come to an impasse.

Do I take a literal interpretation on everything? No.
I'm not young earth, but I do have to acknowledge that most scientific estimates for the age of things are based on an assumption: That there is no God.

That is incorrect. One that you really need to support. When making such statements you need to be careful. Making false claims about others, or even what they know, is a violation of the Ninth Commandment even if you believe it but are wrong. There is no need to assume that there is no God to know that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old.

most young earth creationists base their timeline on another assumption of their own: That the bible gives a definite timeline with no gaps. They assume Adam sinned basically the same day he was created.
so I am actually agnostic on that question, as to the age of the world and universe.
I think we can probably use ice cores to count back a bare minimum age that is much older than 6000 years, but once we get into radiocarbon dating we're using an assumption that we know the original amount of C14 that was present, tying that with the assumption that there is no God and that this all happened on its own with no cause, it leads to an exaggerated age.
I'm also a theistic evolutionist.

And that can be shown to be wrong by quite a few different means. That does not mean that God does not exist. It only means that the interpretation of YEC's is incorrect.

By the way, carbon dating is never used to date the Earth. For other methods of radiometric dating we can know the original concentrations. No "assumptions" needed, at least not in the sense that you are using the word.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm not young earth, but I do have to acknowledge that most scientific estimates for the age of things are based on an assumption: That there is no God.

Science does not make that assumption.

 

[pitabread]

I'm not young earth, but I do have to acknowledge that most scientific estimates for the age of things are based on an assumption: That there is no God.

Science is agnostic with respect to the subject of God. It doesn't assume there is no God any more than it assumes there is one.

Science is silent on the issue.

 

[Ophiolite]

It's questions of faith, and if you have no faith, then it's like speaking different languages, we're going to come to an impasse.

Do I take a literal interpretation on everything? No.
I'm not young earth, but I do have to acknowledge that most scientific estimates for the age of things are based on an assumption: That there is no God.
most young earth creationists base their timeline on another assumption of their own: That the bible gives a definite timeline with no gaps. They assume Adam sinned basically the same day he was created.
so I am actually agnostic on that question, as to the age of the world and universe.
I think we can probably use ice cores to count back a bare minimum age that is much older than 6000 years, but once we get into radiocarbon dating we're using an assumption that we know the original amount of C14 that was present, tying that with the assumption that there is no God and that this all happened on its own with no cause, it leads to an exaggerated age.
I'm also a theistic evolutionist.

It bewilders me that many members are unwilling or unable to answer a direct question with a direct answer. I think you may have answered "No" to my first question, but that is not at all clear, while you completely ignored my second question for the second time. I've re-read both my relevant posts and the questions seem quite clear, so I am at a loss to know why you chose not to answer them directly.

I make a sincere effort to attempt to answer each question I am asked. I acknowledge I may miss some, through forgetfulness, or simply missing them, but I do not deliberately avoid them. Unfortunately, the appearance that you may have done so here coincides with me getting fed up with it. The frustration is not directed at you, but at the frequency of such occurrences. You could go a long way towards removing such frustration if you were to answer them directly now and give a simple explanation of why you had not done so earlier. Thank you in advance.