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.
One might stretch YEC being a theory on the basis that it can falsified but since there is zero evidence for a young earth and overwhelming evidence for a ~3.5 billion year earth, YEC has been falsified whether it can be considered a theory or not.By that definition it is a valid scientific theory.
The Golden books of the B.O.M. hadYou deleted this part from the post you replied to:
Unsupported assumptions. There is a book that is allegedly divinely inspired – as there are so many books that are allegedly divinely inspired – that describes the creation of the world in 6 days. But nothing indicates that
• Any divine being exists
• The specific divine being to whom the bible is ascribed exists
• The bible is indeed the work of this alleged divine being
• The bible has been maintained and passed correctly through the ages (the Deuterocanonical Books, anyone?)
• The bible needs to be read literally.
As long as not all points are proven, there is no reason to take the following claim seriously: “what He did, when He did it, where He did it, how He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were.”
I invite you to support your claim, to provide any evidence for it and to answer the bullet points above.
A theory needs at least one fact doesn't it?One might stretch YEC being a theory on the basis that it can falsified but since there is zero evidence for a young earth and overwhelming evidence for a ~3.5 billion year earth, YEC has been falsified whether it can be considered a theory or not.
Do you guys need computers to "find results that contradict a literal reading of the bible," when you claim that God creating a loaf of warm raisin bread would be deceptive?Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell, George Lemaître, Lord Kelvin, none of these used computers. Yet found results that contradict a literal reading of the bible.
Just don't tell me He was vague about what He did.As long as not all points are proven, there is no reason to take the following claim seriously: “what He did, when He did it, where He did it, how He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were.”
I invite you to support your claim, to provide any evidence for it and to answer the bullet points above.
What would falsify the theory of evolution?One might stretch YEC being a theory on the basis that it can falsified but since there is zero evidence for a young earth and overwhelming evidence for a ~3.5 billion year earth, YEC has been falsified whether it can be considered a theory or not.
Finding things that contradict a literal reading isCharles Darwin, Charles Lyell, George Lemaître, Lord Kelvin, none of these used computers. Yet found results that contradict a literal reading of the bible. So you fail at that already.
But more fundamentally, I see that you are at smearing the sciences again, at depicting it as one big anti christianity conspiracy.
In your Daffy Duck thread you tried to pretend that creationists don't hate science, knowledge and intelligence. You should at least try to keep your story straight.
I need to remind you that it is you who somehow thinks that computers have some nefarious influence and are instrumental at attacking christianity.Do you guys need computers to "find results that contradict a literal reading of the bible," when you claim that God creating a loaf of warm raisin bread would be deceptive?
Sometimes I am astonished by my own wit and eloquence.Oh, wait!
Nevermind!
You were smart enough not to answer that challenge.
Instead, you said:
"In an imaginary world where gods create whatever they want everything is possible.
Science on the contrary deals with the real world and is bound by the testable and observable.
This kind of threads is nice Spielerei, but any extrapolation to the real world would be invalid."
That's the second time that you dodge any attempt at convincing us that there is some truth in what you wrote.Just don't tell me He was vague about what He did.
Eventually they make a mistake in their hunt.Finding things that contradict a literal reading is as easy as figuring Jesus wasn't a sheep.
Would you know the truth if I told it?That's the second time that you dodge any attempt at convincing us that there is some truth in what you wrote.
You don't even try.Would you know the truth if I told it?
So you can deny it?If you think you have something valuable to share, that is demonstrably true, I invite you to share it with us.
Merry Christmasdriewerf said:If you think you have something valuable to share, that is demonstrably true, I invite you to share it with us.
Yes?So you can deny it?
Here, I'll let you QED my point:
Merry Christmas
However, the Hebrew language has been shown to have been around long before Abraham.Because Abraham was the first Hebrew.
What would falsify the theory of evolution?
Yes. But there was no necessity to argue if it is truly a theory by illustrating that theory or not it has already been falsified.The Golden books of the B.O.M. had
eyewitnesses. Signed and sworn to.
A theory needs at least one fact doesn't it?
But not alternatives to doing science. Alternative hypotheses is fine: abandoning the scientific method is not.Science needs to be open to alternative theories.
Science is far far more open than religion thatI don't think there is one single idea or way of thinking that should have a monopoly on what is considered science. Science needs to be open to alternative theories. It should be okay to challenge current theories and have discussions, even if some theories are based on faith. There are brilliant PhD-level scientists who are creationists and can explain certain phenomena within the creationist view. Some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived believed in a Creator God. In many ways, current science has led some former atheists to consider the possibilities.
The universe is so finely-tuned that one cannot fully, totally deny the possibility that it was created by an intelligent being.
Nobody here would want to be an innocentBut alternatives to doing science. Alternative hypotheses is fine: abandoning the scientific method is not.
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?