-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Evolutionists win by default....
- Thread starter Follower of Christ
- Start date
lithium.
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2002
- 4,662
- 4
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
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.
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.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
Nope, not until they're falsified. Everything that passes through humans is inherently fallable, because we are fallable.
No argument here.
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.
But you've already dismissed "fallable" evidence, which leaves you with absolutely no evidence at all.
They have a theory already: "Goddidit." They'll happily change, alter, or disregard any "facts" which don't support this idea.
Buy into whatever theory you want, but don't be surprised when you can't sell it.
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
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?
Upvote
0
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?
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?
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
Mechanical Bliss
Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
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.
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
Chris H
Active Member
- Sep 1, 2002
- 240
- 0
- 60
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
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.
Upvote
0
I would say that if your faith were shaken that easily, you might not have been too sure of it to begin with.
The ''evidence'' will change from month to month. Who cares if we dont understand it all yet.
You cant be serious that you would give up salvation because of speculation.
Upvote
0
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)
Upvote
0
lithium.
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2002
- 4,662
- 4
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
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.
Upvote
0
Unfortunatly Follower Seems to refuses to back up any claims that he makes. Unfortunatly, thats not new for people here.
Upvote
0
L'Anatra
Contributor
- Dec 29, 2002
- 678
- 27
- 41
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
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
Upvote
0
Similar threads
