cDK Theory

[AV1611VET]

What in the world are you talking about? Describe an example.

Thalidomide -- and please feel free to use the quote button, thank you.

 

[RickG]

The universe was created at its present size 6 to 12 thousand years ago. The light back then was much faster, taking only 6 to 12 thousand years to reach us. Since then the light has slowed down significantly to its present speed. It seems as though light slows down with age just like we do.

That idea is not only absurd, it is unsupported and breaks virtually every law of physics. And never mind all the other many ways that show the earth is well over 6,000 years old.

 

[Tiberius]

Thalidomide -- and please feel free to use the quote button, thank you.

Describe in detail exactly what it is you are talking about, because you are not at all clear.

 

[AV1611VET]

Describe in detail exactly what it is you are talking about, because you are not at all clear.

In other words, we've been over this before; haven't we?

 

[Jazer]

In Science, you look at all results and actually make an effort to falsify your own data and theories.

That is why we have OEC Creationism today. Men of Science tested the belief and found that there were better explainations for how God created the world we live in. If you reject YEC because of so called Science then you should be a shoe in for OEC that is based on Science.

Luke 7 32 "They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling out to each other: "'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not cry."

 

[And-U-Say]

That is why we have OEC Creationism today. Men of Science tested the belief and found that there were better explainations for how God created the world we live in. If you reject YEC because of so called Science then you should be a shoe in for OEC that is based on Science.

Luke 7 32 "They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling out to each other: "'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not cry."

OEC is not based on Science. It just rejects less Science than YEC does. I think of it as YEC Light. More Sciency flavor and less dogmatic after taste. You have gone part of the way, you might as well go the rest of the way and discard the last of your superstition.

 

[Tiberius]

In other words, we've been over this before; haven't we?

Not that I recall. As far as I know, we've never discussed thalidomide.

 

[Greg1234]

OEC is not based on Science. It just rejects less Science than YEC does. I think of it as YEC Light. More Sciency flavor and less dogmatic after taste. You have gone part of the way, you might as well go the rest of the way and discard the last of your superstition.

You think the age of the earth only comes from a community of science that endorses Darwinism, the big bang and methodological naturalism?

 

[Loudmouth]

One issue is how reliable are scientific statements dealing with a certain range/scale/scope of time or space, in a certain field.

You are saying that any starlight from more than 10,000 light years away can not be trusted. Period. Why? Because your religious beliefs will not allow you to accept it. The issue here seems to be religious dogma getting in the way of knowledge.

 

[RickG]

You left out a third group.

Sometimes the general public has to falsify products produced or misapplied by your theories as well.

Such as?

 

[AV1611VET]

You left out a third group.

Sometimes the general public has to falsify products produced or misapplied by your theories as well.

Such as?

Thalidomide -- didn't you keep reading?

You left out a third group.

Sometimes the general public has to falsify products produced or misapplied by your theories as well.

What in the world are you talking about? Describe an example.

Thalidomide -- and please feel free to use the quote button, thank you.

 

[Tiberius]

lol, that's your answer for everything, isn't it?

"Thalidomide, therefore everything can take a hike!"

So how is thalidomide a product falsified by the public?

 

[AV1611VET]

So how is thalidomide a product falsified by the public?

Ask them:

 

[RickG]

Thalidomide -- didn't you keep reading?

Thalidomide is not a scientific theory. It is the result of pharmaceutical marketing during a time when prescription drugs were not as well tested as they are today.

You seem to think a few things that go bad in science makes all science bad. That is a logical fallacy. Maybe we should look at all the bad things that religion has been responsible for throughout history.

 

[AV1611VET]

You seem to think a few things that go bad in science makes all science bad. That is a logical fallacy. Maybe we should look at all the bad things that religion has been responsible for throughout history.

Go right ahead -- then I'll enlighten you as to what an Independent Fundamental Baptist is.

But first, let me refresh your memory on something that Say tried to slip past us:

No, only religion does that. In Science, you look at all results and actually make an effort to falsify your own data and theories. And other Scientists look to falsify your data or theories. This is the very basis of Science, something the religious have a hard time understanding since they are brought up to agree, not scrutinize. But in Science, fame only awaits those who come up with something new or overturn existing theories. Every Scientist knows this.

You left out a third group.

Sometimes the general public has to falsify products produced or misapplied by your theories as well.

And before I let you get away with this doosey:

You seem to think a few things that go bad in science makes all science bad.

... let me highlight a word you must have overlooked:

Sometimes the general public has to falsify products produced or misapplied by your theories as well.

Science has very little tolerance for criticism from the common crowd, doesn't it?

 

[Tiberius]

"Sometimes", you say? Then why do you keep bringing up the same tired arguments over and over again?

And no, I choose not to quote, because your post is directly above mine.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Sometimes", you say? Then why do you keep bringing up the same tired arguments over and over again?

Apropos.

 

[Tiberius]

I don't think that word makes sense the way you are using it...

 

[And-U-Say]

Go right ahead -- then I'll enlighten you as to what an Independent Fundamental Baptist is.

But first, let me refresh your memory on something that Say tried to slip past us:

And before I let you get away with this doosey:

... let me highlight a word you must have overlooked:

Science has very little tolerance for criticism from the common crowd, doesn't it?

The public did not falsify the product (that is not even the right word or intent). You are misusing this. You do not understand Science or the process. Science is ALL ABOUT criticism, but you have to have evidence. Something YEC and OEC don't have.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

Evidence is good, sure. Interpretation can be good, too.

Now with either YEC or Evolution people can point to evidence and make interpretations.

Philosophy and underlying metaphysical assumptions have a LOT to do with how such interpretations are made, and what is considered relevant and convincing evidence, and can have something to do with the determination of how to select and apply the relevant methodologies.