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.
Ahh, the key word observations. I have no problem with observable evidence, it's the stuff that hasn't been observed that I have a problem with.Tomk80 said:There goes history, a large part of physics (all observations from the past), anthropology, forensic science etc etc.
vossler said:Ahh, the key word observations. I have no problem with observable evidence, it's the stuff that hasn't been observed that I have a problem with.
vossler said:How do you accurately test something that happened in the distant past if you weren't there?
No matter how you do it, you're basing it on assumptions, not facts.
On the surface this sounds good, although without knowing a specific example I'm not ready to categorically accept it.caravelair said:so if a theory makes predictions about what evidence we should find, and we can observe that evidence, then you have no problem with that theory?
Interesting. You claim that the future will not also be spiritual. I suppose you also think the universe is not temporary and will not pass away. I dare you to support it. -Phoney.caravelair said:in other words: 100% fantasy.
You STILL don't get it. It's YOUR claim, it's up to YOU to support it. You never can, so we are justified in calling it fantasy.dad said:Interesting. You claim that the future will not also be spiritual. I suppose you also think the universe is not temporary and will not pass away. I dare you to support it. -Phoney.
I can do that.Electric Skeptic said:You STILL don't get it. It's YOUR claim, it's up to YOU to support it. You never can, so we are justified in calling it fantasy.
No, you cannot. You have been repeatedly asked to do so; you have ALWAYS failed.dad said:I can do that.
It has been supported, in many threads, by many people. You just choose to ignore the evidence.dad said:Now, on to YOUR claims of the old age crowd, that the future and past are just physical as the present. You STILL don't get it. It's YOUR claim, it's up to YOU to support it. You never can, so we are justified in calling it fantasy.
False.dad said:Very justified. See, you can't support it.
It doesn't need to.dad said:Get it? Seriously. All you can do is make unsubstansiated claims "AS IF" it were a fact! Science cannot go into the future or past to tell us one way OR the other.
Your 'merged support' no doubt comes from elsewhere; it agrees with no science and no evidence.dad said:My merged support therefore comes from elsewhere, and agrees with science, and evidence.
The weatherman makes many predictions too, that doesn't mean I trust him anymore than I do any other scientist. Sure scientists have come up with some good theories as to our past, but since none of us was there and God was, I think I go with what He says.caravelair said:easy, by testing the falsifiable predictions of your theory. common descent makes many predictions about what evidence we must find in the present, and also about what evidence we will find in fossils from the past. there are many ways to test it.
I said distant past.caravelair said:are you claiming that we can't scientifically know anything about the past? hello? forensic science?
First of all it assumes the non-existence of miracles and wonders of God. It also assumes that the dating methods being used are correct when many times an item can be dated with one method to be of a certain age and then another method gives a completely different answer.caravelair said:exactly what assumptions do you think evolution is based on? it is most certainly based on facts.
Then here goes. I will support the future change in the universe from the bible. It says this heavens will pass away, and a new ones appear. Care to challenge that baby?Electric Skeptic said:No, you cannot. You have been repeatedly asked to do so; you have ALWAYS failed.
You must have missed something. Piling theories and assumptions on an assumption and belief the past and future were as the present supports nothing. How does the fossil record tell us there was no spiritual component to matter?It has been supported, in many threads, by many people. You just choose to ignore the evidence.
It agrees with all science and physical evidence and fossil record, and the bible. Why talk for nothing when you lack the nitty gritty?Your 'merged support' no doubt comes from elsewhere; it agrees with no science and no evidence.
vossler said:The weatherman makes many predictions too, that doesn't mean I trust him anymore than I do any other scientist.
Sure scientists have come up with some good theories as to our past, but since none of us was there and God was, I think I go with what He says.
I said distant past.
First of all it assumes the non-existence of miracles and wonders of God.
It also assumes that the dating methods being used are correct...
... when many times an item can be dated with one method to be of a certain age and then another method gives a completely different answer.
Let's face it since there is no witness to the past one has to make certain assumptions in order to evaluate it.
Here are a few random others that come to mind. Only explanations without a creator are viable.
Don't evolutionists claim that the totality of matter and energy has always been the same?
What about the transition from non-living to living, this is somehow assumed to be a gradual change from simple elements to molecules to life. There is no proof of this.
Here's one that really gets me, mutations and Natural Selection alone are somehow able to develop new elements whereby they organize into a more complex life form, and then somehow, unknown to us, develop new information from which to change into other forms. That's one heck of an assumption.
One more: natural laws continue today as they always have.
I realize some of the assumptions I mentioned are out of the scope of science, but that's just it, this isn't solely a science question.
Predictions are still predictions and they are all based on evidence of some sort that pontificate unto an unknown. When a weatherman predicts the future we can check him out to test how reliable he is. When a scientist does the same regarding the past we will never be able to fully check it out. No one knows whether information known today can be accurately extrapolated into the distant past.caravelair said:that is not the same type of prediction i am talking about. a theory makes predictions about what evidence we should find. we then TEST THE PREDICTIONS. that is how we know whether they are right or not.
So science is now infallible?caravelair said:you mean you will ignore science over your fallible personal interpretation of a book written by men who claimed to be inspired by god.
It's one thing to say three weeks ago I knew what happened, it's quite another to say 3 million years ago I knew that anything happened. If that makes me stupid, then stupid I am.caravelair said:what's the difference? you weren't THERE at the murder scene either. thing that happen in the past leave traces that remain in the present. if we can't know about the distant past, are you saying we can't know that dinosaurs lived then? we find there bones, sure it's possible that they were planted there to deceive us, but it is far more reasonable to assume they belonged to animals that once lived. no one was THERE. no one has ever seen a dinosaur walking around. we still know it happened. to claim we can't know about the past through science is, quite frankly, stupid.
Whenever the answer it is your looking for isn't presented then of course the method of testing was done incorrectly. Proper scientists know that in order for their findings to be acceptable they must correlate with one another.caravelair said:only if the methods are used incorrectly. creationists like to purposely use the methods incorrectly to try to show that they are giving inconsistent results. that is nothing more than total dishonesty. proper scientists who know what they are doing can produce accurate results that do correlate with each other.
Are you saying that science accepts the possibility of a creator?caravelair said:correction: only falsifiable explanations are testable. this does not assume that a creator doesn't exist or that he didn't have anything to do with anything. we don't need to make assumptions about god to test our hypothesis. all we do is check to see if the evidence fits our predictions, and it does.
O.K. limit the scope from a living single cell animal to organize itself into ever increasing forms of life. The concept is the same, only the beginning changes.caravelair said:this has nothing to do with evolution either. you are talking about abiogenesis which is one theory on how life came into existence. evolution does not depend on abiogenesis in any way. evolution itself says nothing whatsoever about how life came into being. it could have been through abiogenesis, it could have been created by god, it could have been seeded by aliens... as far as evolution is concerned, it doesn't matter which of these is correct.
Have we observed where mutation creates new and increased complexity of form? They've done thousands of experiments with the fruit fly and in the end all they ever had was a fruit fly, mutated, transformed, even unrecognizable as a fly, but nonetheless a fly. So the assumption of new species development is just that, it has never been observed.caravelair said:that's not an assumption, it's an observation. we have directly observed many examples where mutation creates a new protien or something, and evolution selects for this new trait.
Whether it is reasonable or not I'm not talking about, it is an assumption nonetheless.caravelair said:ah, here you're getting a little closer to the truth. we do assume that things like erosion would happen the same in the past as they do today. that seems like quite a reasonable assumption, don't you think?
vossler said:Predictions are still predictions and they are all based on evidence of some sort that pontificate unto an unknown. When a weatherman predicts the future we can check him out to test how reliable he is. When a scientist does the same regarding the past we will never be able to fully check it out. No one knows whether information known today can be accurately extrapolated into the distant past.
So science is now infallible?
It's one thing to say three weeks ago I knew what happened, it's quite another to say 3 million years ago I knew that anything happened. If that makes me stupid, then stupid I am.
Proper scientists know that in order for their findings to be acceptable they must correlate with one another.
Are you saying that science accepts the possibility of a creator?
Have we observed where mutation creates new and increased complexity of form?
They've done thousands of experiments with the fruit fly and in the end all they ever had was a fruit fly, mutated, transformed, even unrecognizable as a fly, but nonetheless a fly.
So the assumption of new species development is just that, it has never been observed.
Whether it is reasonable or not I'm not talking about, it is an assumption nonetheless.
So in the end the question is that as a non-expert I don't always accept the work of so called experts, especially when they don't reconcile themselves to the Word of God.
I would appreciate their work much more if I felt the integrity and willingness to consider all options were taken into consideration. IMO, that is rarely done, especially in the field of evolutionary study.
vossler said:Predictions are still predictions and they are all based on evidence of some sort that pontificate unto an unknown.
When a weatherman predicts the future we can check him out to test how reliable he is. When a scientist does the same regarding the past we will never be able to fully check it out.
No one knows whether information known today can be accurately extrapolated into the distant past.
So science is now infallible?
It's one thing to say three weeks ago I knew what happened, it's quite another to say 3 million years ago I knew that anything happened.
Whenever the answer it is your looking for isn't presented then of course the method of testing was done incorrectly.
Proper scientists know that in order for their findings to be acceptable they must correlate with one another.
Are you saying that science accepts the possibility of a creator?
O.K. limit the scope from a living single cell animal to organize itself into ever increasing forms of life. The concept is the same, only the beginning changes.
Have we observed where mutation creates new and increased complexity of form?
Predation was a powerful selective force promoting increased morphological complexity in a unicellular prey held in constant environmental conditions. The green alga, Chlorella vulgaris, is a well-studied eukaryote, which has retained its normal unicellular form in cultures in our laboratories for thousands of generations. For the experiments reported here, steady-state unicellular C. vulgaris continuous cultures were inoculated with the predator Ochromonas vallescia, a phagotrophic flagellated protist (lsquoflagellatersquo). Within less than 100 generations of the prey, a multicellular Chlorella growth form became dominant in the culture (subsequently repeated in other cultures). The prey Chlorella first formed globose clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. After about 10–20 generations in the presence of the phagotroph, eight-celled colonies predominated. These colonies retained the eight-celled form indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. These self-replicating, stable colonies were virtually immune to predation by the flagellate, but small enough that each Chlorella cell was exposed directly to the nutrient medium.
They've done thousands of experiments with the fruit fly and in the end all they ever had was a fruit fly, mutated, transformed, even unrecognizable as a fly, but nonetheless a fly.
So the assumption of new species development is just that, it has never been observed.
Whether it is reasonable or not I'm not talking about, it is an assumption nonetheless.
So in the end the question is that as a non-expert I don't always accept the work of so called experts, especially when they don't reconcile themselves to the Word of God.
I would appreciate their work much more if I felt the integrity and willingness to consider all options were taken into consideration.
IMO, that is rarely done, especially in the field of evolutionary study.
Yes, I do stubbornly hold onto what I know and resist things that make little to no sense.Loudmouth said:I would never call you stupid. Stubborn comes to mind, but that also describes me.
All I know is that forensic scientists have a hard enough time recreating a crime scene and for me to believe that other scientists can accurately recreate the distant past is a far greater assumption that I'm willing to entertain.Loudmouth said:Simply, observing today's world does allow one to recreate the past.
I'll give you a recent example of how this can play out. The Korean scientist who stated he was successful, over two years ago, in cloning a human in the prestigious magazine Science. After this announcement everyone in the U.S. was clamouring for government aid in order that we wouldn't be left behind. Where was the peer review that was supposed to be done before any such findings are ever released? Why did it take almost two years before this was finally found to be a fraud? Obviously the evidence wasn't very strong, yet it was lauded by everyone.Loudmouth said:Not at all. They must explain why their findings differ, and support their conclusion with evidence.
Well as a non-scientist it isn't something I can grab a hold of. I'm sure if I looked hard enough I'd find someone to dispute those findings. The point is I've never seen it, nor have the vast majority of people.Loudmouth said:Yep. Hall's egb lactase system. Read about it here.
Are you saying that since the beginning primates never were anything other than primates?Loudmouth said:Then why do you have a problem with human evolution? Humans and chimps are both primates, as is our common ancestor. It is just a primate turning into a primate.
I looked at the links and to tell you the truth it was interesting to read, but I didn't leave it thinking to myself speciation does occur. I saw scientific explanations of experiments that were conducted that told of their findings. Somewhat interesting findings, but hardly convincing that speciation occurs, at least to me. Then again I'm a non-scientist living in the 21st century who like most people wants to see it himself before he believes it.Loudmouth said:Speciation has been observed numerous times.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Speciation is a fact.
Without the qualifier of God I would have nothing. So to me the evidence comes second to what God has to say. Evidence can be misleading, but God isn't.Loudmouth said:Why the qualifier? I am an expert in my field and I disagree with many of the experts within my field. It's about evidence, not religious conviction.
I've taken the step of considering it already and haven't found myself willing to go further. There is nothing within the Bible itself that would lead me to believe that Genesis could be allegorical or mythical. The wording is too clear and simple in order for me to entertain such thoughts.Loudmouth said:Maybe you can take the first step and be willing to consider the Genesis account as an allegory instead of a literal history.
I always find points like this to be rather humorous. My personal interpretation of the Bible, if I said that about science and it's findings you'd all jump on me and state otherwise. Well I see the Bible the same way, it doesn't contradict itself unless you allow it to. There is a proper method to study it and mine the truths within it, the problem is the vast majority of Christians hardly open it and yet will pontificate upon what it says. Kind of like YECs and evolution you might say.caravelair said:to your personal interpretation of what is claimed to be the word of god. keep in mind, some of these experts are christian scientists who accept radiometric dating and evolution, and don't feel that it conflicts with the bible at all. they feel that god reveals his word through his creation.
No I don't read science journals and to tell you the truth I'm not much interested in them. I do know this that the number of Christian biologists is less than the number who aren't. I base that upon Gallup polls that have been conducted which show that only 45% of scientists believe in God. From that, as a Christian using the Bible, one can see that of those 45% only half at best are true to their faith. So this then tells me at best 20% of scientists are Christian. Then of those a highly significant percentage are evolutionists. That doesn't leave a lot left for those that believe the Bible as it is written.caraveliar said:how would you know? have you ever read a science journal? how would you know anything about the field of research? do you really think all those christian evolutionary biologists out there are not considering the possibility that a god exists? seriously now.
Secondly and most importantly I have little to no faith in what much of evolutionary science produces because I believe it all to be a lie.
Believe me I'm teachable, I've read more about the lie of evolution than I care to admit. I'm always willing to read another article or listen to another argument. Both of which I've been doing in this thread.rmwilliamsll said:one of the requirements for an elder in the church is teachability.
I can't say I necessarily agree with this. My biblical filter will always be up, God tells us we should be doing just that. I will agree with the theme that in order to learn one must really listen, but that isn't necessarily the opposite of being stubborn. It all depends upon what one is stubborn about.rmwilliamsll said:the idea is that in order to learning, in order to really listen, we need to open ourselves up and accept things without the normal filters against folly we have in place. after understanding what is said we go back over the material and look for things that clash with our systems. but to learn we need to really listen, which is almost the opposite of stubborn.
Aron-Ra said:He said he reached over the rail in a museum and scratched one of the fossil displays -already convinced that it couldn't be real, and discovered it was made of dental plaster. When I tried to explain to him why plaster casts are often used, he said I was just making up excuses as an attempted cover-up.
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?