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.
I understood him to say that it is not falsifiable.you are the one who claimed that evolution has been falsified...can you back that claim up?
I said it was not falsifiable, in that there is no possible way for it to be disproven. It will simply be infinitely modified as contradictory evidence compiles. Which is why there are multiple competing "theories of evolution."you are the one who claimed that evolution has been falsified...can you back that claim up?
proponents of ID call it a theory but it is not.That wasn't my intent, but to highlight that whether "scientific" or not ID and creation are both theories, though not necessarily empirical.
To show that Theory is not only according to your, "Theories are based on evidence and observation and can be tested."suffices for what?
But is that the real definition which is what is being sought after will you help me ?
Uh, yeah, but on this board, scientific or not is a legitimate demarcation in discussion. Non-scientific theories are not the topic here.That wasn't my intent, but to highlight that whether "scientific" or not ID and creation are both theories, though not necessarily empirical.
I notice you didn't answer the questions.You left out the majority of the definition. Why?
Can you back that claim up?I understood him to say that is is not falsifiable.
Yes. His subsequent post backs me very satisfactorily.Can you back that claim up?
The OP is about whether YEC is compatible with intellectualism,Non-scientific theories are not the topic here.
Of course it could be disproved.I said it was not falsifiable, in that there is no possible way for it to be disproven. It will simply be infinitely modified as contradictory evidence compiles. Which is why there are multiple competing "theories of evolution."
What piece of evidence would prove it false?
My bad. I get carried off on the sidelines a lot.The OP is about whether YEC is compatible with intellectualism,
not whether it satisfies the criteria for a "scientific" theory.
OK, care to elaborate?The OP is about whether YEC is compatible with intellectualism,
not whether it satisfies the criteria for a "scientific" theory.
It would be interesting to see a survey looking at the degree of overlap between creationism and other anti-science/conspiratorial beliefs like:
- Climate change denial
- Covid virus conspiracies
- Covid vaccine conspiracies
- The Trump election conspiracy
- The Great Reset conspiracy/globalism
- The Critical Race Theory conspiracy
- The 4G conspiracy (is that still a thing?)
- The Great Gay conspiracy (to convert us all to gay)
I'm sure there are more.
OB
How did he know her name was Martha?I was thinking of this only yesterday. How accurate a cold reading could you do on someone if you saw that he had a MAGA hat in the back of his car.
'I'm getting something from the spirit world. Someone with the initial B? A family member who has passed? They say that you don't believe in global warming. Is that right? And that you think that the evolutionary theory is an attempt to deny God. And...I think I see something about an injection of some sort? You are refusing an injection? Am I right? And she says, yes - you are right not to wear a mask.'
'Gee, Martha. How could he have possibly known all that?'
If it could be shown that mutations beneficial to survival in forms that can reproduce occur at a rate sufficient to produce the completed current form in the time available to do so.
- If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
- If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
- If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.
Well first you probably need to demonstrate that the last several thousands of years of gained knowledge of the universe is actually irrational,
and then it might be useful to demonstrate a god that could in fact make those thousands of years of observation irrational. In the mean time, I will not assume an irrational arbiter over whether the sun will rise tomorrow.
Well let's start with the rate, and how do you know this?If it could be shown that mutations beneficial to survival in forms that can reproduce occur at a rate sufficient to produce the completed current form in the time available to do so.
Begin with the lightning zap on the gelatinous foam, or whatever started the ball rolling.
Showing you don't even understand the premise of creationism.
No one should be saying that all science is useless or always irrational. Science has given us many great things and is very useful. Would be nice if it wasn't so full of its own omnipotence though and realized it doesn't know everything and was open to other ideas.
What we are saying, or what I am saying, is this knowledge is being gained about the world as it is now. Not how it was.
We believe the world at creation had very different laws in place.
science on the other hand won't have that, they believe what they see now is the key to the past. We say they have the wrong key.
.
The thousands of years of observation are from the world we have now, not the world we lost. Only Adam and Eve were alive to experience the first world. It also changed not once but 3 times. Fall-flood-Tower of Babble.
We believe this because we believe God and his word.
I was questioning his use of the word irrational which he appears to be using in an atypical sense.Showing you don't even understand the premise of creationism.
No one should be saying that all science is useless or always irrational. Science has given us many great things and is very useful. Would be nice if it wasn't so full of its own omnipotence though and realized it doesn't know everything and was open to other ideas.
What we are saying, or what I am saying, is this knowledge is being gained about the world as it is now. Not how it was.
We believe the world at creation had very different laws in place.
science on the other hand won't have that, they believe what they see now is the key to the past. We say they have the wrong key.
The thousands of years of observation are from the world we have now, not the world we lost. Only Adam and Eve were alive to experience the first world. It also changed not once but 3 times. Fall-flood-Tower of Babble.
We believe this because we believe God and his word.
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?