That's not what he said. Nice strawman.
That's not what he said. Nice strawman.
No. But then again nobody has made that assertion. Nice strawman.
Upvote
0
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.
That's not what he said. Nice strawman.I'm not buying this "scientists are uncertain" junk.
That's not what he said. Nice strawman.If they're so uncertain, why do they look forward to sending people to the moon; as well as expecting them safely back?
No. But then again nobody has made that assertion. Nice strawman.Would YOU get in a space capsule designed by engineer scientists who are uncertain of their work?
Ad Hominem was your best tactic. It was an unanswerable case.That's a lot of waffle right there.
Talk about false ideas about science!
There's more than these, but-
Your " 4 pillars"! You made that up.
Proof? There's zero proof in science.
Same with that certainty thar you claim is
how "many" scientists lie to themselves.
It's religionists, it's religioridts who are so
certain.
You cannot produce one scientist with such
alleged certainty.
If you have to inventory things in order to
criticize, then maybe.....?
Ad Hominem was your best tactic. It was an unanswerable case.
If you cannot demonstrate it with the empirical method then you are not talking about facts. Just because a theory sounds right and seems to explain things does not make it right. I can live without a proper scientific explanation where none is really possible. Simple really. But people seem to be a little obtuse around here.
Obtuse means slow to understand.If you cannot demonstrate it with the empirical method then you are not talking about facts. Just because a theory sounds right and seems to explain things does not make it right. I can live without a proper scientific explanation where none is really possible. Simple really. But people seem to be a little obtuse around here.
Not much of anything is certain.Because it's only in doing the uncertain act will you find out with certainty if the result is a success or a failure.
He who dares, wins.
Thanks for clarifying.That wasn't an ad hominem in the slightest. If it was an ad hominem, I'd have made a direct attack on you. What I said "That's a lot of waffle right there." is directly referring to what you wrote, which WAS a lot of waffle.
If you cannot prove something yet call it science you are just playing the odds and might well be completely wrong.Obtuse means slow to understand.
You did not understand a word I said.
Not much of anything is certain.
We go through life playing the odds.
Nobody mangled in a car wreck thought it
would happen.
Maybe the problem here is a false definition of science and the steady extension of the scientific scope into areas it is really not qualified to comment on. The false notion here is that we need to have a model with scientific explanatory power to explain something that cannot be proven one way or the other.
Ultimately the big 4 pillars of modern science (Old universe, Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Common Ancestry) cannot be demonstrated or proven by the scientific method. Their traction comes from their storytelling power and how they incorporate facts into these narratives. When creationists fail to come up with a scientific story with equal explanatory power they are dismissed or marginalized. But maybe those who say that the story is just a story unless you can prove it and actually no one has definitive scientific answers is the one that is being honest. The biblical story is ultimately held to by faith in the absence of any conclusive evidence to the contrary (and there isn't any that I have ever heard). That there are great gaps and in fact, a cloud of unknowing about many issues relating to origins is just a symptom of honesty. Most mainstream scientists are lying to themselves when they express certainty about their theories of origins.
Thanks for clarifying.
To summarise I said four key scientific theories were worthless waffle that could not be supported by the empirical method i.e proved. You replied saying what I said was all waffle. Glad we were agreeing then and you were not attacking me for my position.
Thanks for clarifying.
To summarise I said four key scientific theories were worthless waffle that could not be supported by the empirical method i.e proved. You replied saying what I said was all waffle. Glad we were agreeing then and you were not attacking me for my position.
Proof is only applicable to alcohol and math.If you cannot prove something yet call it science you are just playing the odds and might well be completely wrong.
I disagree with a lot of your ideas presented here.
For starters I'll assume you are using "proof" and "prove" in their common use not the absolute logical or mathematical sense... because no scientific evidence deals in absolutes.
If we have a "model with scientific explanatory power" then it clearly CAN be proven one way or another.
Your phrase "big 4 pillars of modern science" is a purely made up lumping together of four concepts you don;t like from almost unrelated fields of scientific research,
Using "storytelling power and how they incorporate facts into these narratives" is a manipulative and I think dishonest representation of "can explain the detailed evidence".
Then following on with "absence of any conclusive evidence to the contrary (and there isn't any that I have ever heard)" for a literal story that has been directly contradicted by evidence for centuries before the modern understanding of science.
The YEC narrative is only possible with a deliberately deceptive and constantly intervening deity, leaving the concept of evidence impossible,
Genetics demonstrates there has not been a recent bottleneck of human genetics... let alone the rest of life at the same time and also that there is a pattern of similarity in life consistent with branching families and not with hard barriers and separate creation.
Geology demonstrates that has not been a worldwide flood any time in hundreds of millions of years and also that there have been hundreds of millions of years of events on the Earth.
Physics demonstrates the mechanisms for measuring time over long periods of time on the Earth and that these are consistent across the universe... it also demonstrates billions of years of events and objects leading back to a point around 14 billion years ago.
Chemistry demonstrates the form and function of the bio-chemistry that make up a human being functions under the same mechanisms as unliving chemicals.
Anthropology and archaeology demonstrate that humans and near relatives have been living across the world for far longer than most Creationist scenarios allow for,
I'm afraid I will have to concentrate on the poster in this case. Theories can't be proved. That's just about the first thing anyone learns about scientific theories. If you state that 4 key theories can't be proved, all you are doing is exhibiting the fact that your scientific knowledge is such that any discussion about the theories themselves would be a waste of forum bandwidth.
The empirical method determines facts which supports the explanation of other facts (the theory). Or not, as the case may be. So if you have any evidence that does not support any of of the 4 theories you mentioned, then I'll really look forward to hearing about them.
Over to you.
Speaking of fact-free. Flood?
There was no life on this planet, and as you are sitting there reading this, obviously there was. I think you meant to ask how it happened. God moves in mysterious ways, so we're still working that out.So where are the facts supporting abiogenesis?
There is no proof of the emergence of biology from chemistry. There is a theory about it and an explanation about how it might have occurred but no facts, and nothing like the kind of understanding that could even begin to duplicate the effect.
This demonstrates that you are mistaken in multiple ways.This is a memory aid for me, these are the fact-free four theories that most impact a Christian worldview and cannot really be properly supported by the scientific method. I do not care if scientists think they are unrelated. The real relationship between them is that they represent a growth of scientific scope beyond what the empirical method can actually support.
Not really when, for example with abiogenesis, there are no facts. Each theory is really assessed on how plausible it sounds and how well it uses the jargon. The stories bear little relation to actual reality, if they did we would be growing biological organisms from purely chemical inputs by now.
What evidence? Maybe you have lower standards of what qualifies here.
It is dishonest to assume the irrelevance of the supernatural to the natural order. Miracles happen even today.
Since most life was wiped out by the flood and in fact decimated by it it would be hard to identify a bottleneck by comparing before and after. How much of the previous diversity of life could have been passed on by 3 pairs of humans from this era (excluding Noah and his wife) is a matter of guesswork. Also, there are a whole host of assumptions that are going to differ about the age of breeding afterward, lifespans, etc in the crucial era. Nothing definitive here.
The whole geological record screams sudden catastrophe and sedimentary rock. This is really just a matter of perspective that cannot be proven either way.
Personally, I think the old universe brigade has the strongest case of the 4 theories I mentioned. But again nothing definitive.
Analogous reasoning is not proof of anything. That is like comparing two pieces of computer code and telling me they are written in the same language - so what!!! My assessment of your capability to programme will be based on the results you can produce with that understanding, how well you can utilize the code libraries, and the ways in which you have demonstrated an understanding by doing something with it. The chemistry of rocket engines is convincing because we can build rockets but saying biological organisms have chemistry is meaningless if the implication is that biological organisms emerged from that Chemistry. Duplicate it or even give me a faint approximation and I will believe you understand it and that the theory has credibility. Shared patterns are nothing and are a very low standard of proof. well, in most cases no proof at all really.
They mainly show how human beings lie about their history and reflect the assumptions of the people doing the surveys. There is a considerable amount of circumstantial endorsement of scripture from these also. There is nothing to be afraid of here and the church has mainly digested the worst accusations and spat them out by now.
You think Paul Bunyan was a real person? REALLY?
Ultimately the big 4 pillars of modern science (Old universe, Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Common Ancestry) cannot be demonstrated or proven by the scientific method.
Paul Bunyan was a great legend among my people.
So God did it then and you do not know how. That was my answerThere was no life on this planet, and as you are sitting there reading this, obviously there was. I think you meant to ask how it happened. God moves in mysterious ways, so we're still working that out.
That one was easy. Let's do another.
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?