Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If a scientist happens to be a creationist... what's wrong with him/her presenting what they consider supportive scientific data in that regard (or a non-professional creationist from using that info)?Because Creationists make claims about science and evidence.
Why should Creationists try to argue creation in terms of science? Evolutionists never argue conversely and limit all discussion to scientific parameters.
Nothing at all, but they don't.If a scientist happens to be a creationist... what's wrong with him/her presenting what they consider supportive scientific data in that regard (or a non-professional creationist from using that info)?
It's likely that time does not exist without matter. So it only began after creation. And the rate of time may be directly tied to the matter being created.I’m a Creationist and I believe in the Bible, even though I often misinterpret it, and I try to avoid getting into ‘literal or not’ discussions. Having said that, ‘time’ seems to be the most perplexing thing for me in most arguments. I don’t question the Bible, but I question our understanding of time, whether it be a little or a lot, in regard to interpreting it.
True. Dating the earth based on genealogies is not logical.I don't think so. But I'm not one to ask, either. I'm an Anglican, educated by Catholics, and my friends who are Christian tend to be Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox or Oriental Christians. I don't have much contact with Protestants, particularly Evangelicals, except in forums like this one. It has always been a mystery to me that creationists believe what they do about the Word of God. I know people have tried to deduce the biblical age of the Earth from such things as the genealogies but to suppose that they were put there for that purpose seems unfathomable to me.
How often have you seen evolutionists arguing for evolution in faith-based terms?
Not disprove... my point was most choose a faith-based explanation over a science-based theory, so why should they be expected to explain their position in scientific protocol only? That is basically arguing a basketball and baseball game with only basketball rules allowed.
Well, faith-based ideas shouldn't be considered science, but if science can be shown to support such ideas then...
According to my understanding* of Big Bang Theory the Big Bang "fireball" was too hot for matter to condense from it for some considerable time. How did that time pass, since in your version there could be no time to pass? That is, unless you equivocate "likely" and "a contradiction of Big Bang Theory to suggest". I doubt you intended that.It's likely that time does not exist without matter.
If a scientist happens to be a creationist... what's wrong with him/her presenting what they consider supportive scientific data in that regard (or a non-professional creationist from using that info)?
Not disprove... my point was most choose a faith-based explanation over a science-based theory, so why should they be expected to explain their position in scientific protocol only? That is basically arguing a basketball and baseball game with only basketball rules allowed.
Yeah well I said that too but I used a lot more words.It's more like creationists are trying to basketball by baseball's rules. It doesn't work like that.
If creationists want to play in the realm of science, they need to work within the rules of science. That means coming up with testable hypothesis and actually testing them.
If creationists don't want to do that, that's fine. But then they shouldn't expect the scientific community to take them seriously when it comes to matters of science.
I'm not a YEC (I've stated often that I don't think we understand time), just to be clear, but what qualifies as data for you?Data is good, unsuppottsble claims about it is not.
Do you have sn example of data that supports yec or somesuch?
Keeping in mind that it comes to little if it does not falsify
anything about deep time or evolution.
You learn to be as short as you possibly can be here, often at the expense of being called rude.Yeah well I said that too but I used a lot more words.
The problem is that scientists that are creationists do not use the scientific method when it comes to their creationistic beliefs. To present scientific data one must have a testable model to apply it to. Otherwise what one is doing is merely making an ad hoc explanation. Those are of no value in the sciences.If a scientist happens to be a creationist... what's wrong with him/her presenting what they consider supportive scientific data in that regard (or a non-professional creationist from using that info)?
What one needs is evidence, not just "data':I'm not a YEC (I've stated often that I don't think we understand time), just to be clear, but what qualifies as data for you?
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor 2:14Creationists argue their ideas wit falsehoods, nonsense.
So its logical to counter with facts.
What is your response to faith in nonsense?
I have often referenced the documentary "Is Genesis History?" that has scientists with different interpretations of data than you guys have, but everyone seems to 'snuff' it off.What one needs is evidence, not just "data':
Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific method.
Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.
Data is meaningless without a guiding hypothesis.
I have often referenced the documentary "Is Genesis History?" that has scientists with different interpretations of data than you guys have, but everyone seems to 'snuff' it off.
Well, thank you for at least acknowledging it. I just find it interesting that scientists in the documentary interpret data and evidence in less than deep time terms, and therefore supportive of creation.FWIW, I watched the Todd Wood segment. The funny thing is that Todd Wood's claims in that segment re: mapping physical discontinuity based on fossil skulls is contradicted not just by other creationists but also Todd Wood's own writings.
This is another example where I can't just shrug off the knowledge I have (of creationist writings no less!) in the context of that film segment.
I'm not a YEC (I've stated often that I don't think we understand time), just to be clear, but what qualifies as data for you?
And there so called "interpretations" are worthless. They are not scientific explanations. And the qualifications of many of those so called scientists are in rather severe doubt.I have often referenced the documentary "Is Genesis History?" that has scientists with different interpretations of data than you guys have, but everyone seems to 'snuff' it off.
I have often referenced the documentary "Is Genesis History?" that has scientists with different interpretations of data than you guys have, but everyone seems to 'snuff' it off.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?