Evolutionists win by default....

FoC, This is the first time I have seen one of your posts. I have been gone for a long time. Welcome to the forum.

From what I can see by reading your posts you think that all the evidence that science has found points to YE, well I was wondering if you wouldn't mind showing me this evidence your talking about? And you can't throw out the dating methods, or evolution. True science looks at all evidence and then falsifies it. I seen in one of the earlier posts you said that creationist don't accept fallible dating methods. Well can you show me how there fallible? And which one's you think are fallible?

Now sure you can throw out ToE (and all the evidence), and the dating methods, but just because you do that doesn't make them wrong or you right. It would be ok if you could falsify the dating methods, and the evidence that supports ToE. Until that's done you can't just dismiss them and say your right. Or your interpretation of what you think is right.

Today at 02:12 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #63

I cant throw out the fallable dating methods and evolution speculation?

Click to expand...

Nope, not until they're falsified. Everything that passes through humans is inherently fallable, because we are fallable.

Based on the months of searching thru lots of science sites (secular and Christian) I believe all dating methods used are fallable (unless someone builds a time machine).

Click to expand...

No argument here.

Any evidence presented that shows the fallability of dating method is always dismissed anyway, so whats the point?
If someone showed you personally that they were not as predictable as some here believe, would you then change your stance?

Click to expand...

Because 99.9% of the time:

(A) The "falsifying" data is mistaken. 

(B) The person "falsifying" the dating methods has little to no idea of how they work, and doesn't know what they're talking about.

(C) The "falsifiers" are operating on a agenda which requires the data to be false, so they'll take any contrary "evidence," no matter how absurd, to support their beliefs.

(D) The "falsifiers" will spew out on incorrect idea after another, and when they are rejected, blame some massive conspiracy for not taking their blather seriusly.

(E) All of the above.

I say that the evidence fits (almost all of it) in my young earth faith.

Click to expand...

But you've already dismissed "fallable" evidence, which leaves you with absolutely no evidence at all.

 

Starlight and others may be a hard one, but I have time for Christians to come up with a good theory on that, too.

Click to expand...

They have a theory already: "Goddidit." They'll happily change, alter, or disregard any "facts" which don't support this idea.

If One can buy into secular theory, then I can buy into theory thats fits the Biblical account.

Click to expand...

Buy into whatever theory you want, but don't be surprised when you can't sell it.

Today at 02:48 PM Nathan Poe said this in Post #64

Nope, not until they're falsified. Everything that passes through humans is inherently fallable, because we are fallable.


They have a theory already: "Goddidit." They'll happily change, alter, or disregard any "facts" which don't support this idea. 

Click to expand...

White man speak with forked tongue. So are you saying that humans are "inherently fallable" but when it comes to facts then they are always right on?

Or are you simply saying that any facts that support what you believe are true and if the facts do not support your position then they are inherently fallable?

I think he is saying that Humans are inherently falible, which is why scientists check and recheck their data. They also submit papers for peer review to make sure things are right in it.

Its like radiometric data. A scientist didnt wake up one day and say "radiometric data is right" and all other scientists believed him. There have been years and years of study and useage of it. And now scientists know when and how to use it to get it right.

Ironically, when a creationist uses Carbon dating and gets a wrong number, its not because carbon dating was flawed, but because the fallible human didnt read the manual and didnt use the dating method correctly (sometimes its on purpose, too).

Its like if you run a car without oil and the engine burns out. Whos fault is it that the car didnt work right? The cars or the persons?

Today at 12:26 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #65



White man speak with forked tongue. So are you saying that humans are "inherently fallable" but when it comes to facts then they are always right on?

Or are you simply saying that any facts that support what you believe are true and if the facts do not support your position then they are inherently fallable?

Click to expand...

Today at 03:26 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #65



White man speak with forked tongue. So are you saying that humans are "inherently fallable" but when it comes to facts then they are always right on?

Click to expand...

 

John out in desert sun too long. I am saying that humans are inherently fallable. I am saying that whenever we are presented with facts, and called upon to draw conclusions based on those facts, there exists the possibility for error. 

Or are you simply saying that any facts that support what you believe are true and if the facts do not support your position then they are inherently fallable?

Click to expand...

Johnny, you're projecting again. I said that this is a common tactic for those who do not like the scientifically accepted conclusions based on known facts.

Science looks at facts and tries to draw the right conclusions. Religion has had the conclusion they want written down for the last 2000 years and is looking for the right facts.

The irony here is that the literal account of the bible was pushed out the door something like 200 years ago, and yet its still being used as fact today.

Today at 01:02 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #68



Great point.

And as I pointed out elsewhere, it will be a grand old day when some new fact or theory pushes evolution right out the door.

Science theory is notorious for pushing theory as fact, and then a couple years later being forced to recant based on some new finding that debunks previous theory.

What was that again? FALLABLE.

Sorry gents, I will stick to the account given by the one who did it.

Click to expand...

If something is "fallible" that does not mean it is automatically "falsified".

Your interpretation of the Bible is also fallible. Your supposed evidence for the Young Earth scenario is also fallible. There is other evidence however that falsifies it, yet you ignore it.

Yesterday at 01:52 PM lucaspa said this in Post #29

I'm afraid I didn't see a theory there.  Could you summarize it or point it out to me?  What I saw were crises of faith when people brought up on Biblical literalism were confronted by evidence in Creation.  Exactly what Pete Harcoff and I are saying is happening.

Click to expand...

Sorry.  Here's a more direct link.  www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/synop.htm

Lucaspa, I don't think you fully understood my point.  From a scientific point of view, I agree with almost everything I have read in your postings.  What I am simply saying is that a 24-hour day is not the only possible translation for yom and that many of the so-called irreconcilable differences between Genesis and evolutionary theory may not be so irreconcilable if one goes back to the original Hebrew text to see what the author really meant to say.   I don't discount the possibility that figurative language may have been used extensively by the Hebrew author(s), but to completely throw out any historical content in Genesis is to put Christians in a tenuous position when it comes to the inerrancy of the Bible.

I hope you can find the time to read Glenn Morton's theory.  It's quite intriguing.

By the way, I am very familiar with the Documentary Hypothesis.  Whether it is a valid theory or not, it doesn't change the fact that the Pentateuch is a vital portion of the foundations of Judaism and Christianity.

 

26th March 2003 at 12:39 AM Francie said this in Post #10

I Genesis God said six days, I am not going to dispute his word. God Bless!

Click to expand...

Which is why I am considering giving up Christianity for Agnosticism-the Bible indicates six days, the evidence denies a six day creation, and I think perhaps I was wrong-maybe it is wrong to mix christianity and evolution.

Today at 07:59 PM Chris H said this in Post #72




Which is why I am considering giving up Christianity for Agnosticism-the Bible indicates six days, the evidence denies a six day creation, and I think perhaps I was wrong-maybe it is wrong to mix christianity and evolution.

Click to expand...

Many...in fact I would say most...Christians worldwide accept evolution and it doesn't interfere with their faith. Many of these Christians assume Genesis was written to be non-literal or even that it was originally and oral tradition that was imperfectly written down later (as has happened with the oral traditions of many cultures, the early Hebrews were probably not literate)

Yesterday at 02:12 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #63

I cant throw out the fallable dating methods and evolution speculation?

Based on the months of searching thru lots of science sites (secular and Christian) I believe all dating methods used are fallable (unless someone builds a time machine).

Any evidence presented that shows the fallability of dating method is always dismissed anyway, so whats the point?
If someone showed you personally that they were not as predictable as some here believe, would you then change your stance?

I say that the evidence fits (almost all of it) in my young earth faith.
Starlight and others may be a hard one, but I have time for Christians to come up with a good theory on that, too.

If One can buy into secular theory, then I can buy into theory thats fits the Biblical account.

Click to expand...

Right, you can't throw them out until you or someone else can falsify them. And they are not fallible like you think. There are a lot of dating methods; Carbon dating only is good to like 50,000 years, but there are other methods that god 100,000+ years, etc...

You haven't shown any evidence that fits young earth. Oh ok you would accept a crack pot theory because it sound good right? I mean if it sounds like it supports your interpretation of the bible.

And your wrong no evidence is completely dismissed in science until it's been falsified. Scientists don't just throw out evidence (like creationist do) they falsify it. And yeah if someone could show me that they were falsified I would change my mind. But that hasn't happened.

So you have only been reading AIG, ICR, Dr.Dino (all crack pots)? Why don't you look at real scientific information.

Unfortunatly Follower Seems to refuses to back up any claims that he makes. Unfortunatly, thats not new for people here.

So you have only been reading AIG, ICR, Dr.Dino (all crack pots)? Why don't you look at real scientific information.

Click to expand...

Because the evidence was put there by Satan!! J/K.

Yesterday at 04:02 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #68
Great point.

And as I pointed out elsewhere, it will be a grand old day when some new fact or theory pushes evolution right out the door.

Science theory is notorious for pushing theory as fact, and then a couple years later being forced to recant based on some new finding that debunks previous theory.

What was that again? FALLABLE.

Sorry gents, I will stick to the account given by the one who did it.

Click to expand...

You do know what a scientific theory is, don't you?

Here, let me help you: a scientific theory is NOT a mere conjecture or guess. A scientific theory IS, however, a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree. To dumb that definition down just a bit for you: a scientific theory is a set of statements relating portions of some process (fact) observed in nature. In this way, evolution is both theory and fact. You heard me right, biological evolution as a process was and continues to be observed in nature. The theory of evolution was developed in order to explain how it works. Got it?

To reiterate: Evolution is NOT mere conjecture. In addition, it has done a remarkable job explaining the diversity of life on this planet for nearly 150 years in some form or another. So, chances are it will not be "debunked" any time soon.

However, if a scientist or group of scientists managed to falsify evolution, or any theory which requires a young Earth (as it were), or any other commonly accepted theory, he/she would gain instant fame. He'd (or she'd) make a heck of a lot of money as well. It really would be a "grand day." I'm certainly beginning to sense a great deal of paranoia in your tone. THERE IS NO "EVOLUTIONIST" CONSPIRACY!!!

Do you follow? The overwhelming support for these theories (i.e., evolution, gravity, relativity, the big bang, the standard model of particle physics, etc. ad nauseum) exists because the theories work. That's right, they are useful for something, if only to explain how things have come to be. As human beings, we inherently ponder these concepts. That's why no one in their right mind has any reason to accept evolution dogmatically. No one at all. I certainly do not...

By the way, I find it totally ironic that you choose not to realize that the Bible itself, though certainly inspired by God, was written by fallen men thousands of years ago. In that sense, the Bible is just as unreliable as creation, if you choose look at it that way. You can't pick one over the other. That's why creation is the second book of God. Do you deny that God created? To throw away whichever evidence you choose is to call God a liar. That's right, bud: you're calling God a liar because you can't get it through your unbelievably thick skull that maybe your interpretation of His word could conceivably be the teeniest bit WRONG!

Just to get something off my mind: Biblical literalists are absolutely dangerous to Christianity. The irony is becoming so thick I can grasp it with my hands! Literalists prattle on about how they know the whole truth (coming from their own fallen minds) and choose to remain in a state of ignorant bliss, while scientists in general state (without any hesitation, I might add) that we know practically nothing about how our world works and do everything they can to make sure human fallibility is removed from their conclusions. Just a thought for those picking through the Bible looking for verses relating how our arrogance and ignorance will destroy us...

Well, I'll get off my soapbox now and wait for a reply.

EDIT: wording

Today at 03:04 AM Arikay said this in Post #76

Unfortunatly Follower Seems to refuses to back up any claims that he makes. Unfortunatly, thats not new for people here.

Click to expand...

No kidding!

Today at 03:52 AM wblastyn said this in Post #77


Because the evidence was put there by Satan!! J/K.

Click to expand...

That darn Satan; When will he ever learn?