Is Astrology a science?

[Diamond72]

Ifn you knew so much about science you would
know not to assume your conclusions.

Science is based on testing your hypothesis. I read a lot of research. I grew up reading my dad's medical journals. He use to talk about stuff, but chances are I already read the article before he did.

 

[Tuur]

How can there truth in YEC and OEC when they are diametrically opposite.

It depends on whether or not you believe "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

 

[sjastro]

This is the first I ever heard that term. They call this a strawman when you knock down your own theory.

No its called completely misunderstanding my posts by thinking "catastrophic plate tectonics" and "plate tectonics" were one in the same thing.

 

[Bradskii]

The parent has to repent. The child goes straight to Heaven. I had a dream about my daughter in Heaven.

Goes to heaven...by being drowned.

I nearly drowned very many years ago. I can't begin to decribe the terror I felt. Are you saying that you think an omnipotent God actually made the choice to do that?

 

[Tuur]

You seemed to have missed the point I was making about catastrophic plate tectonics.
Where as plate tectonics is now mainstream science supported by observation, the motivation behind catastrophic plate tectonics it to distort plate tectonics so it becomes consistent with the creationist storyline which is not evidence based.

This is the reason why catastrophic plate tectonics is pseudoscience.

Interesting choice of word. It's just as true to state the motivation behind catastrophic plate tectonics is a suggestion of a mechanism behind the biblical flood. Whether or not the suggestion is true is another matter.

 

[Bradskii]

We know for a fact that Noah's flood did not destroy everyone. So maybe you need to go back and read your Bible again to see who was destroyed in Noah's flood. You will need the Holy Spirit of God to be your guide and teacher.

I will give you a clue. In Genesis 6:7 we read: "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."

Yeah. So that would be every human being (except Noah and his immediate family). Every man, woman and child. Every infant. Every baby.

I mean, what's so difficult about this that you don't understand? And that biblical fact is completely at odds with science. So you were wrong in saying that there is no contradiction between science and scripture.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Was there a comment directed at me? I'll gladly accept the inconvenience of not
knowing for the sheer peace of mind that 'ignored content' gives me.

Then I won't tell you for your own peace of mind. (I think you can guess the inane response from my reply to the message you don't see.)

 

[Bradskii]

Sometimes Alan Watts had a peculiar way of expressing these types of situations in his talks… in one instance I remember a reference to Divine nonsense. I don’t think he was being sacrilegious, but a way of saying we could not comprehend the answer, or that it was simply unexplainable to us.

What he meant was that he had no answer that didn't make God look capricious.

 

[Bradskii]

Science is based on testing your hypothesis. I read a lot of research. I grew up reading my dad's medical journals. He use to talk about stuff, but chances are I already read the article before he did.

You apparently read a lot of his confidential patient files as well. Before destroying them.

 

[sjastro]

YEC covers the last 6,000 years. OEC covers the last 12.7 billion years. dispensationalism covers the last 12,700 years. So they are not even talking about the same thing.

OEC incidentally claims God created the Earth 4.5 billion years ago, YEC 6000 years ago.
So explain the elements of truth for both.

 

[sjastro]

It depends on whether or not you believe "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

No it depends on whether God created the Earth 4.5 billion years ago or 6000 years ago.

 

[Bradskii]

YEC covers the last 6,000 years. OEC covers the last 12.7 billion years. dispensationalism covers the last 12,700 years. So they are not even talking about the same thing.

Then why say that there is truth in all of them? If OEC is correct then YEC is catastrophically, unequivocally and undeniably completely wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

Then I won't tell you for your own peace of mind. (I think you can guess the inane response from my reply to the message you don't see.)

I admit I peeked.

 

[sjastro]

Interesting choice of word. It's just as true to state the motivation behind catastrophic plate tectonics is a suggestion of a mechanism behind the biblical flood. Whether or not the suggestion is true is another matter.

There is no evidence for a biblical flood.
Catastrophic plate tectonics relies on a faith based argument where the conclusion (the flood) is assumed to true and one works backwards to get the desired theory.
This is pseudoscience 101.

 

[inquiring mind]

Billions of People in Thousands of Years?

Creationists are often asked, “How is it possible for the earth’s population to reach billions of people if the world is only about 6,000 years old and if there were just two humans in the beginning?”

answersingenesis.org

 

[Hans Blaster]

I admit I peeked.

I still peak sometimes when I see a hidden response to my post, or what hidden content someone is replying to. (I like this better than the last software version were you wouldn't even know that the post was in response to hidden content.)

 

[Bradskii]

Billions of People in Thousands of Years?

Creationists are often asked, “How is it possible for the earth’s population to reach billions of people if the world is only about 6,000 years old and if there were just two humans in the beginning?”

answersingenesis.org

The maths is ok. The science, specifically the biology, is abysmal. Nay, non existent. From here: Why populations can't be saved by a single breeding pair.

'Fifty effective individuals – the IUCN standard for avoiding inbreeding – equals a total population of 250 to 500. This means that, in a hypothetical apocalypse, humanity would need a lot more than a handful of survivors to repopulate effectively. However, to retain evolutionary potential – to remain genetically flexible and diverse – the IUCN criteria suggest we would need at least 500 effective individuals. That requires a population of 2,500 to 5,000.'

Eight people don't cut it. Especially when 4 of them are from the same family. So interbreeding would take place as soon as the second generation.

 

[Bradskii]

I still peak sometimes when I see a hidden response to my post, or what hidden content someone is replying to. (I like this better than the last software version were you wouldn't even know that the post was in response to hidden content.)

Wouldn't it be be great in real life. If someone in a bar was spouting nonsense you could just tune him out.

I was having a beer last week with an old mate I hadn't seen in a while and he was telling me that he'd had cochlear implants. And that on ocassion, if his wife was giving him a hard time about something then he'd surreptitially turn the volume down.

 

[inquiring mind]

The maths is ok. The science, specifically the biology, is abysmal. Nay, non existent. From here: Why populations can't be saved by a single breeding pair.

'Fifty effective individuals – the IUCN standard for avoiding inbreeding – equals a total population of 250 to 500. This means that, in a hypothetical apocalypse, humanity would need a lot more than a handful of survivors to repopulate effectively. However, to retain evolutionary potential – to remain genetically flexible and diverse – the IUCN criteria suggest we would need at least 500 effective individuals. That requires a population of 2,500 to 5,000.'

Eight people don't cut it. Especially when 4 of them are from the same family. So interbreeding would take place as soon as the second generation.

What do you think of the population figures for 50,000 years?

 

[Hans Blaster]

What do you think of the population figures for 50,000 years?

For 50,000 years what? Years ago? Sourced from where?