Hieronymus
Well-Known Member
- Jan 12, 2016
- 8,428
- 3,005
- 54
- Country
- Netherlands
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
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.
No they haven't.Are you aware that
science has proven that the universe is older than 13 billion years.
O, but why does it have to be "the same evidence as mainstream science"?I am not asking for anyone to show something right or wrong. I am asking for anyone to provide an example where the creation science literature shows that they use the same evidence as mainstreams science but come to a different conclusion with that same data.
Despite your continuing attempts to misrepresent the situation, science says no such thing--it is silent on the issue.Either God did it or He didn't.
"Regular science" says He didn't...
All I am asking for is an example where the same evidence is used but conclusions with that same evidence are opposing. Do you have an example?Indeed.
It is a matter of how one looks at things.
Assuming there's a body of gathered sound evidence, it's what both sides base their opinions / views / conclusions on.I find both sides have an axe to grind and make mistakes.
First, just an idiosyncrasy of mine. There are no proofs in science, proofs are unique to the field of mathematics. Science rather than saying we have proof, says the evidence shows this to be a fact.
Because the creation science community claims that they use the same evidence.O, but why does it have to be "the same evidence as mainstream science"?
Then provide an example, same evidence different opinion.Maybe the main streamers only pick what they can use for their case, and leave the rest unattended.
For example, the dating methods as presented by the mainstream seem to be beyond doubt, whereas the other side will use ignored evidence to prove the opposite.
Correct. Science does not deal with proofs. Proofs are exclusive to mathematics.No they haven't.
They have evidence for it though.
Hello sfs.A few comments.
1) Mainstream science does not assume or assert there was a singularity at the origin of our universe. If you naively extrapolate the expansion of the universe and the known laws of physics back in time, you will indeed reach a singularity, but physicists have every reason to think that the known laws of physics break down before you reach that point.
To propose the idea of a Big Bang, one needs to conform to the ideology of empiricism.2(*)) Cosmologists have drawn conclusions about the very early universe: it was
very hot and very dense and expanded rapidly -- i.e. the Big Bang. These conclusions
are based on a range of evidence, including cosmological red shifts, element abundances
and isotropy. As far as I know, creationists do not use these data to draw any conclusions.
If they do, that would be a good example of the phenomenon we're looking for.
The Flood.All I am asking for is an example where the same evidence is used but conclusions with that same evidence are opposing. Do you have an example?
You forget something: ObservanceCorrect. Science does not deal with proofs. Proofs are exclusive to mathematics.
Hello Hieronymus.No they haven't.
They have evidence for it though.
Hello Commander.If God created the universe(one spoken sentence-let there be light), then God and through His word tells us how old it is. Here is a hint, it's not billions of years old.
Written history is not, cannot be considered as scientific evidence. It may describe scientific evidence, tell us where to look for scientific evidence, but it is not in itself evidence. The Bible is no more evidence of the Flood than Darwin's Origin of Species is evidence of evolution.The Flood is backed by written history...
You are aware, I trust, that the more reputable sort of creation scientists have abandoned polystrate fossils. their formation is too well understood by conventional geologists.RickG-do you know how words in English language are formed? Polystrate Fossils: Poly-one from the Greek πολύς meaning "many" or "much"; strate-of several parallel layers of material arranged one on top of another (such as a layer of tissue or cells in an organism or a layer of sedimentary rock), Fossils-the remains or impression of a prehistoric organism preserved in petrified form or as a mold or cast in rock. Most of the time, they are a combination from several different words, and many of these words are from other/older languages-as in Polystrate Fossils. Whomever came up with the word polystrate fossils did so by combining several different words, we see this quite often. Now, the polystrate fossil in Post #30, how old does science say they are, since I am a creationist I would say they are less than 10,000 years old. That is what the OP addresses, the difference between science and creation, and I have given you evidence by the picture. Have a blessed day.
They assume that they are all right side up, but this is not always the case, see the picture in post #30 for an example.You are aware, I trust, that the more reputable sort of creation scientists have abandoned polystrate fossils. their formation is too well understood by conventional geologists.
Written history is not, cannot be considered as scientific evidence. It may describe scientific evidence, tell us where to look for scientific evidence, but it is not in itself evidence. The Bible is no more evidence of the Flood than Darwin's Origin of Species is evidence of evolution.
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?