• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

How do you decide if something is factual?

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Kylie, Sep 15, 2017.

  1. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET BELIEVE IN MIRACLES Supporter

    +41,599
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Over and over until they get it wrong?
     
  2. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +6,621
    Atheist
    I've had dreams like that...

    If you check what Job actually says, the springs of the sea and the depths of the sea are separate 'or' clauses, i.e. it refers to the springs or the depths. But I'm no expert - perhaps you could explain how it's clear that the springs are in the depths?

    Well, it depends what kind of natural explanation you're looking for; for example, the 3% of unexplained UFO sightings are pretty much what you'd expect from investigating a large number of random misidentifications, misperceptions, illusions, hallucinations, etc.

    Similarly, events that seem a little odd or coincidental can balloon into fully-fledged incredible experiences given time and several retellings; even dream sequences can be inserted into memories or become memories in their own right. The more times a memory is recalled, the more likely it is to be embellished, distorted, merged, or otherwise drift from the original experience - which itself is typically only an approximation of the original events.

    The most likely natural explanation for bizarre or seemingly inexplicable reports is the way our brains work.

    But hey, we're all suckers for a good story, so it's more fun if we just keep the mystery and don't delve too deep. It's often said that Homo Sapiens should be renamed Homo Narrans.
     
  3. Kenny'sID

    Kenny'sID Well-Known Member Supporter

    +6,831
    Christian
    Single
    And that means evolution is a fact? If so, please provide an example that demonstrates that fact.

    So you really are saying none of science is based on opinion?

    Where did you come from and how do you conclude your answer?

    And when you say testable, do you mean the tests show a certain proof?

    I'm assuming you think my parents created me....if so, think bigger/further back. If not then you'll need to further explain.
     
  4. Lily of Valleys

    Lily of Valleys Well-Known Member

    786
    +417
    Australia
    Christian
    Married
    But even if you found none of those, it still hadn't disproved that I did eat strawberries. But that's beside the point. I could use "It is a fact that I just raised my hand and put it down before I made this post" instead, or many others to show that facts do not have to be falsifiable.

    Falsifiability could mean:
    (1) able to be proven to be false (common definition)
    (2) capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation

    Since I equate "fact" to "truth", something that is true cannot be proven to be false, regardless of whether human are capable of testing its truthfulness by experiment or observation.

    That's what I said in post #74:

    "Evidence" is subject to interpretation.
     
  5. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +6,621
    Atheist
    Science has no problem explaining water on Earth - water is not only bound into the rocks themselves, but the solar system has vast amounts of water, and comets and asteroids have carried it to the planets since they first formed. If anything, the problem is in deciding which source provided the largest contribution. See Where Did Earth's Water Come From?
     
  6. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,590
    United States
    Atheist
    Married

    You cannot possibly think this actually addresses my 'challenge'?

    It was clear in your original post that you used the fact that for those genes you picked, whose sequence lengths were different, to imply that calling them 'the same gene' was dishonest.

    My 'challenge' was to look at the genes that YOU chose as apparent examples of evolutionist dishonesty to see whether or not their disparate lengths were due to them having not been equally sequenced.

    Great - did you actually compare the sequences for these genes:


    Human Gene HDLBP
    Rat Gene Hdlbp
    Yeast, S. cerevisiae Gene SCP160 (YJL080C)
    D. Melongaster, Gene Dp1 (CG5170-RB)

    or did you call foul:



    "What it ACTUALLY shows is some semblance of similarity, and this not nearly as exact as the rhetoric would like you to be convinced of.

    If you really look at the data (void the narrative attached that explains the data according to the already accepted pre-conceived notion) we suddenly realize that the shoe does not fit the foot....Look at this alleged “same gene” across species...an ALLEGED shared gene...Now as fit as the hypothesis based explanation appears, the actual data shows us they actually are nothing alike...they are different in size AND FUNCTION...yet billed as “commonly shared” in the rhetoric.

    Well since what I am telling you is true, how did they convince so many? This process of convincing the masses of the speculative for a definite motive (to prove their theory) requires consistent:

    a) Interpretation of all data...


    b) Repetition over and over....

    c) Appeal to Authority....


    d) And then finally through c) consensus follows (the argumentum ad populum)..





    based SOLELY on the fact that their published sequences are not identical?

    By the way - that is QUITE an indictment - especially when one considers the overarching amount of projection you are employing!

    Repetition? Appeal to authority? THAT is creationism's bread and butter!




    Anyway -

    THAT is the crux of the issue, not whether you considered this or that!

    My gosh, that had to have been my obvious point!

    This is getting as silly as your round and round on your doctored Blum quote.
     
  7. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    At one point there are no indicators of humans then there are. The real meaning of hominidae ONLY referred to humans, but this allowed other scientists to question the Darwinian model, so they blurred the lines to include all the great apes (to make the theory appear reasonable). They often have changed meanings to be more generalized so the theory seems more feasible. It is a common propaganda technique. For example, in the 1970s, politicians did the same thing with the word "choice" so that any who make a different choice are now billed as being against freedom of choice. The new definition created by the pro-death crowd (right to die, assisted suicide, partial birth abortion, euthanasia, etc.) denying the freedom of choice of whole group who previously also enjoyed free choice without repercussions.
     
  8. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,590
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Not all interpretations are equally valid, wouldn't you agree?

    Those interpretations which rely on purposefully obscuring information (such as Henry Morris' treatment of folding processes) or concocting fantastical scenarios (such as requiring thousands of rhythmites to be laid down in minutes to explain varve formation) can and should be rejected.
     
  9. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    My 'challenge' was to look at the genes that YOU chose as apparent examples of evolutionist dishonesty to see whether or not their disparate lengths were due to them having not been equally sequenced.

    MOST evolutionists are not dishonest, just convinced before they interpret (this influences their conclusions). And yes this is just like MOST Creationists you are correct and I agree.

    Now whether or not the "disparate lengths" were due to not being equally sequenced (which they obviously are not) is irrelevant to what establishes something (in each person's opinion) as factual (yo know the OP?). In this case in this discussion, they are NOT the same gene regardless of what means they use to determine "same" as factual.

    They are structurally DIFFERENT, and have different functions in each respective organism. So "same" is not factual...DIFFERENT IS. In my example, the basis for determining what constitutes "factual" is the actual observable data, as opposed to the narrative attached to explain the reality in light of the hypothesis (like many creationists do). Also it appears you are blurring threads...with the probability thread...
     
  10. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,590
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    At one point there is dust of the ground and then there is a fully formed human male.

    Is that why 'they' did that? really? What is your evidence that this is the case?

    Or is this just your biased spin?
    All your years of scientific reading and study and, as I have already pointed out, when it comes down to it, you "argue" like a plain old under-informed creationist.

    Boring and mundane rhetoric.
     
  11. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Not all interpretations are equally valid, wouldn't you agree?

    Indeed most are not...they are often inferences assumed, based on the pre-conceived notions of the interpreter. Each side has their safety net default...(God of the gaps OR Ancestor of the gaps)

    I cannot comment on your two allegedly "obscuring" references since I have read neither but I have seen the approach you are describing in the extreme versions of each camp, so NO all interpretations are NOT equally valid or necessarily more true.
     
  12. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,590
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Really? How do you know that?
    Yes, I know the OP, but you have a distinct tendency to scamper off from threads where you are asked to explain your accusations and assertions.
    Quite an opinionated assertion.
    Just like evolution allows for.
    Great - I will copy your response there and address it.
     
  13. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Why are you constantly trying to derail the OP and make it appear I am saying things I never said? What did any of my comments have anything to do with Creationism? Not one...but you persist. Simply address the reasoning and the content of the posts from your perspective. For example, the "same gene" comment I gave. Are they the same of different? It's simple, and of course you are free to disagree, but what we can actually observe is that they are different not the same and science should be based on observable facts that can then be tested.
     
  14. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Now whether or not the "disparate lengths" were due to not being equally sequenced (which they obviously are not)

    Really? How do you know that?

    Because they contain a different number of base pairs (thus not equal)....

    I know of our general disagreement but I thought you could see that with your own eyes!

    In this case in this discussion, they are NOT the same gene regardless of what means they use to determine "same" as factual.

    Quite an opinionated assertion.

    Not at all. They are different lengths, and perform different functions in each organism. Simple deductive reasoning makes the conclusion they are different obvious (though I sense you will deny this as well regardless of how undeniably logical the reasoning).
     
  15. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,590
    United States
    Atheist
    Married

    Replying point by point to things you write and drawing conclusions is 'derailing'?

    Ok, whatever.

    By the way - found where you got your 'SAME GENES' from...
     
  16. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,590
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Wow...

    Apparently, when you plagiarized those SAME GENES from Yahoo Answers, you failed to actually check up on them.

    As I suggested, the differing lengths are due to things like... Oh I don't know... Not starting the sequencing at the same locus maybe? Heck - I was able to find about 5 different lengths for the human HDLBP alone - I guess since they are not equal lengths, those cannot all be from humans? And 'those people' with their 'presuppositions' and their 'bias' are just claiming that they are from humans? To prop up their 'evolutionism'?
    And the yeast gene? No introns. I was unable to verify the length provided for the Rat - when I searched NCBI for the designation 'you' provided, all i got was the mRNA (4414 bp).

    I suggest that in the future, when you are adding tidbits to your archives to re-post all over the place when you deem it useful, you take the time to verify and maybe even update the info once in a while. You see, had you ever done any sequencing - or even read about it - you would know about these things and not use the differing published lengths of sequences as an 'argument.'

    Incredible...
     
  17. The Brown Brink

    The Brown Brink Well-Known Member

    802
    +207
    Christian
    Married
    Science does indeed have trouble explaining all earth's water.
    It's a scientific mystery.
    Like the morning chorus of birds...
    Why do they do it...?

    That's a scientific mystery, too.
     
  18. Tolworth John

    Tolworth John Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,674
    United Kingdom
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Yes I am suggesting that, simple because the bible does not support the idea of evolution.

    For a Christian to believe in evolution they have to read into the bible things like millions of years that reading what the bible says does not support.
     
  19. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    We have the gradual appearance of stone tools over millions of years. We have transitional hominids that span millions of years. Your interpretation is not supported by the evidence.
     
  20. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +6,621
    Atheist
    I guess if you don't know or understand the science it could be...

    Much like the origins of water on Earth, there are several good explanations - it's less a mystery, more a question of how much each contributes.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2017
Loading...