Questions about origins of life timeline

[dad]

Only as comic relief and/or a cautionary tale for Christians.

Now, back to the OP....

I would go more by what people say, than an avatar. Since Avi bases his concepts on the word of God, it is not comical.

 

[Kylie]

Reality can take a hike.

Does this mean that you prefer a fantasy?

 

[bhsmte]

Does this mean that you prefer a fantasy?

It would appear to be the case.

And why not, fantasy is so much more pliable, you can just make stuff up as you go along.

 

[AV1611VET]

... you can just make stuff up as you go along.

That's what Mohammad thought too, and he got accused of being a false prophet.

Same for Joseph Smith.

 

[bhsmte]

That's what Mohammad thought too, and he got accused of being a false prophet.

Same for Joseph Smith.

Poor guy.

He had a good left jab though.

 

[AV1611VET]

Poor guy.

Who? Mohammad or Joseph Smith?

 

[bhsmte]

Who? Mohammad or Joseph Smith?

Anyone who is called a false prophet.

That has got to really damage the psyche.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyone who is called a false prophet.

That has got to really damage the psyche.

In Mohammad's case, his "damaged psyche" resulted in the martyrdom of the Christians he was trying to buffalo.

Scientists today, who say one can "just make anything up and get away with it," owe these martyrs an apology ... in my opinion.

But scientists aren't known for apologizing.

Instead, they "discover" what they did wrong, and use that "discovery" to claim "progress."

Christianity is the only thing scientists attack with fervor throughout the ages ... not learning from their mistakes though.

Anything else, like Thalidomide or L'Aquila or the Deepwater Horizon or Three Mile Island or the Hindenburg, they'll claim they've "discovered" how to prevent it from happening again.

Then call it "progress."

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Christianity is the only thing scientists attack with fervor throughout the ages ... not learning from their mistakes though.

In a post filled with with the usual rubbish, this stands out as more than just wrong. You have had it explained to you many times why the above is a false. To continue to make statements that you know are untrue comes under the heading of deliberate lying. Do you do it because you think that lying for jesus is an end unto itself, or is it because you know you won't ever get banned from the forum for deliberately breaking the rules?

 

[bhsmte]

In a post filled with with the usual rubbish, this stands out as more than just wrong. You have had it explained to you many times why the above is a false. To continue to make statements that you know are untrue comes under the heading of deliberate lying. Do you do it because you think that lying for jesus is an end unto itself, or is it because you know you won't ever get banned from the forum for deliberately breaking the rules?

Has AV ever presented a scientific theory that attacked Christianity? Or for that matter, attacked any religion, or even mentioned a religion?

 

[AV1611VET]

In a post filled with with the usual rubbish, this stands out as more than just wrong.

Then explain to me please why atheists & agnostics prefer to use science as a means of pwning the Bible.

Even those who can't spell, have poor grammar, and otherwise demonstrate that they themselves don't know science that well, prefer science as the means of denying Scripture.

And I mean explain it, Mr Strawberry -- to an idjit like me.

Or be prepared to keep on ranting & raving about how I keep on keeping on with the same old PRATTS day-in and day-out; should be banned but isn't; must be a poe; must be a troll; etc. and so ad nauseum forth.

 

[SkyWriting]

In a post filled with with the usual rubbish.... get banned from the forum for deliberately breaking the rules?

Please post a link to , or quote any violated rules.

Or just be quiet and report the post.

 

[SkyWriting]

I am sorry but that statement is pure idiocy.

All events are by definition in the past when we observe them. All we are doing is using different methods of observing those events. You seem to have a strange prejudice for the present, but every physicist knows there is no such thing as "now". No matter how many times you repeat that line about "the scientific method is not applicable to past events" you will be wrong.

Tell that to forensic experts at a murder scene. There is no point in gathering any DNA, that happened in the past! I mean really. Doesn't that sound more than foolish to you?

I am a bit ashamed for you. As Christians we are supposed to be honest.

Though I am a poor and miserable sinner, I try to be both honest and correct.
You are free to correct my information and have unlimited information access
to show I am wrong about the scientific method. Your knowledge about my
background, however, is extremely limited. So claiming I am not honest is
way outside your ability to check. I feel bad about your mistake.

My source seems honest enough.

"The scientific method, a time-honored approach for discovering and testing scientific truth, does not and cannot work for the forensic sciences in its standard form because it does not work for past events. Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally. "

http://www.heartlandforensic.com/writing/forensic-science-and-the-scientific-method

"In other words, two different witness accounts are consistent with the same physical evidence. Which account is true and which is false? We do not know." http://www.heartlandforensic.com/writing/forensic-inference/putting-it-all-together-the-logic-behind-the-forensic-scientific-method-and-the-inferential-test

 

[Dizredux]

Though I am a poor and miserable sinner, I try to be both honest and correct.
My source seems honest enough.

"The scientific method, a time-honored approach for discovering and testing scientific truth, does not and cannot work for the forensic sciences in its standard form because it does not work for past events. Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally. "

Heartland Forensic Pathology: Forensic Science and the Scientific Method

"In other words, two different witness accounts are consistent with the same physical evidence. Which account is true and which is false? We do not know." Heartland Forensic Pathology: Putting It All Together: The Logic Behind the Forensic Scientific Method and the Inferential Test

You left off a little. In the sentences following the abstract says

The forensic scientific method is a modified form of the scientific method that compares anamnestic evidence obtained by investigators with observable physical findings discovered at the crime scene, in the crime laboratory, or in the autopsy suite. This comparison verifies if witnesses or suspects are telling the truth about what they witnessed. The method is a powerful technique for determining the truth of past events.

They are saying that forensic methods that they use are not the standard scientific method but a modified one used to verify witness statements. A somewhat different thing than what is being discussed, that science can make statements about past events. If science couldn't, you would have to throw out geology, all of the astronomy related disciplines and archeology just for examples. They are all based on reconstructing past events using scientific methods.

Think through what you are saying, do you assert that these scientific disciplines are bogus in some way?

Dizredux

 

[dad]

... that science can make statements about past events. If science couldn't, you would have to throw out geology, all of the astronomy related disciplines and archeology just for examples. ...

I agree. One would have to throw them out. I did. It will always come down to that. This is why I cannot see any other possible strategy for the creation side, but to dismiss present state based science for the past.

P, or get off the pot folks.

 

[SkyWriting]

You left off a little. In the sentences following the abstract says
They are saying that forensic methods that they use are not the standard scientific method but a modified one used to verify witness statements. A somewhat different thing than what is being discussed, that science can make statements about past events. If science couldn't, you would have to throw out geology, all of the astronomy related disciplines and archeology just for examples. They are all based on reconstructing past events using scientific methods.

Think through what you are saying, do you assert that these scientific disciplines are bogus in some way?
Dizredux

You really are missing the point. The forensics expert is saying
that science is useless in determining past events. However
because the options of liar to twist past events is so limited
even science can be used to determine lies.

Science alone can never hope to recreate all possible stories and
verify or rule out each one for a past event.
But if there are only one or two possibilities, it can sort one false one.

In those fields, science can make predictions and test them.
Any claims about past events are untestable.
People claim they can find oil in the ground.
There is no consensus on what oil is or how it got anywhere.
And we have plenty of oil to test, so go figure how my
statement is wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

You really are missing the point. The forensics expert is saying
that science is useless in determining past events.

People have been freed from death row because of forensic evidence. The facts say otherwise.

The problem is that you don't want your faith based beliefs about the past to be challenged by things like facts.

 

[Dizredux]

Any claims about past events are untestable.

I think your posts boil down to this one assertion. So lets us start with Geology. Tell me how scientists in the field of geology can do scientific work without being able to deal with past events?

To support your contention, you need to address this point.

A small point:

People claim they can find oil in the ground. There is no consensus on what oil is or how it got anywhere. And we have plenty of oil to test, so go figure how my statement is wrong.

Why do we need a consensus on what oil is or how it got there to find oil? The nature of oil is much more in the area of biochemistry not geology.

What geologists do is to try to understand the structure and dynamics of the earth and from that make predictions (tests) about where oil is likely to be found. How is this not scientific? It has hypothesis building, predictions and testing of those predictions.

Looking foreword to your explanation

Dizredux

 

[Kylie]

Then explain to me please why atheists & agnostics prefer to use science as a means of pwning the Bible.

Because it works.

Science produces results that can be tested and shown to be correct. And science has built-in ways to make it more accurate as new information becomes available.

On the other hand, religion seems to be based on doing whatever is required to keep your belief in an old book, even to the point of ignoring or denying anything and everything that contradicts your beliefs. Something you've been observed doing many times.

 

[biggles53]

You really are missing the point. The forensics expert is saying
that science is useless in determining past events. However
because the options of liar to twist past events is so limited
even science can be used to determine lies.

Science alone can never hope to recreate all possible stories and
verify or rule out each one for a past event.
But if there are only one or two possibilities, it can sort one false one.

In those fields, science can make predictions and test them.
Any claims about past events are untestable.
People claim they can find oil in the ground.
There is no consensus on what oil is or how it got anywhere.
And we have plenty of oil to test, so go figure how my
statement is wrong.

Bollocks....

Tiktaalik lived in the past....it's fossilised remains were preserved in the past....

Yet, scientists were able to make predictions, in the present day, about how and where those fossilised remains had been laid down and where they would be found....

That's PRESENT DAY SCIENCE BEING ABLE TO PREDICT PAST EVENTS....!