-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Science abuse...
- Thread starter Reaver
- Start date
- Status
Which person has I attacked? Any attack on a idea also attacks the persons who holds it in some way, if he holds too hard anyway... Has something I've said been really false? You are right in that I shouldn't say those nasty things regardless. Not quite logical, but I've been in a bad mood the last days and needed some venting. Logic isn't that important to me, anymore. Just a sharp sword that I sadly use to take out frustrations with on some monuments for things I don't like. Christians are usually pretty resiliant, nothing I can say really matters in comparison to God...
Upvote
0
God and the bible. They are not looking for any truth, they just want to find proof for what they already "know" to be true. As usual they will find what they are looking for, humans work in that way.
Upvote
0
This does not answer the original question "such as". What are these unscientific premises, give an example.
Upvote
0
Creationists start with a predetermined confirmation of their "theory", and then they set out to find evidence that fits in nicely with their world-view. Real scientists ask a question, find evidence, and to the best of their abilities answer that question based on the evidence and research that they have accumulated.
Upvote
0
LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
That there is a God.
That this God meddles in the everyday lives of the inhabitants of this universe.
That this God is seeking a personal relationship with the inhabitants of this universe.
That this God is the God of the Bible.
That the Bible is divinly inspired.
That the stories in the bible are literal, historical and scientific facts.
For the YEC's that the Bible even hints that the world is 6000 years old.
That a world wide flood occured.
That Babel is the cause of the division of the languages.
That humans have been around for most of the history of Earth.
and on and on....
Upvote
0
Quote "Real scientists ask a question, find evidence, and to the best of their abilities answer that question based on the evidence and research that they have accumulated".
And how does the application of this prove that there is say no God.
Quote "Real scientists ask a question, find evidence, and to the best of their abilities answer that question based on the evidence and research that they have accumulated".
And how does the application of this prove that there is say no God.
Upvote
0
LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
It doesn't. Science can neither prove or disprove God, nor can it even test such a thing.
Being that God is untestable God cannot be used in a scientific theory, since all parts of a theory must be testable.
Since "Creation Science" does not offer any "theories" without God in them they are not concidered scientific.
Upvote
0
Both evolution and creation describe events that happened, or allegedly happened, in the past. No human observers were there to witness them. They cannot be recreated in a laboratory. No scientific experiment could prove or disprove either evolution or creation. According to this reasoning, if the Bible account of creation is unscientific, by the same premises evolution also must be unscientific.
For example. If a spontaneous beginning for life is to be accepted as scientific fact, it should be established by the scientific method. This has been described as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled.
In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that it is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat it. Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such an inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to elevate such a theory to the level of fact?
On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the conclusion that the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter is not possible. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task, Professor Wald of Harvard University acknowledges, to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. But what does this proponent of evolution actually believe? He answers: Yet here we areas a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. Does that sound like objective science?
British biologist Joseph Henry Woodger characterized such reasoning as simple dogmatismasserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen. How have scientists come to accept in their own minds this apparent violation of the scientific method? The well-known evolutionist Loren Eiseley conceded: After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.
Based on the evidence, the spontaneous generation of life theory appears better to fit the realm of science fiction than scientific fact. Many supporters apparently have forsaken the scientific method in such matters in order to believe what they want to believe. In spite of the overwhelming odds against life originating by chance, unyielding dogmatism prevails rather than the caution normally signaled by the scientific method.
For example. If a spontaneous beginning for life is to be accepted as scientific fact, it should be established by the scientific method. This has been described as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled.
In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that it is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat it. Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such an inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to elevate such a theory to the level of fact?
On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the conclusion that the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter is not possible. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task, Professor Wald of Harvard University acknowledges, to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. But what does this proponent of evolution actually believe? He answers: Yet here we areas a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. Does that sound like objective science?
British biologist Joseph Henry Woodger characterized such reasoning as simple dogmatismasserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen. How have scientists come to accept in their own minds this apparent violation of the scientific method? The well-known evolutionist Loren Eiseley conceded: After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.
Based on the evidence, the spontaneous generation of life theory appears better to fit the realm of science fiction than scientific fact. Many supporters apparently have forsaken the scientific method in such matters in order to believe what they want to believe. In spite of the overwhelming odds against life originating by chance, unyielding dogmatism prevails rather than the caution normally signaled by the scientific method.
Upvote
0
TheBear
NON-WOKED
- Jan 2, 2002
- 20,653
- 1,813
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
TO ALL:
When you signed up here, you agreed to the Forum Rules. Your agreement to the rules, was part of the registration process.
You can find the complete list of Forum Rules, by clicking on the link at the bottom of every page.
Rule No. 2 - No "Trolling"
You will not post any topic that disrupts the peace and harmony of this forum. This will include any new user with less than 50 posts starting a "discretionable" topic - i.e. a topic not suitable for children. This will also include posts that put down Christianity in general or any posts considered as blasphemy by staff (this is a CHRISTIAN FORUMS site), or posts that put down another Christian group or denomination. This includes links to websites in profiles and signatures.
We encourage civil and respectfull discussions.
Thank you,
John
When you signed up here, you agreed to the Forum Rules. Your agreement to the rules, was part of the registration process.
You can find the complete list of Forum Rules, by clicking on the link at the bottom of every page.
Rule No. 2 - No "Trolling"
You will not post any topic that disrupts the peace and harmony of this forum. This will include any new user with less than 50 posts starting a "discretionable" topic - i.e. a topic not suitable for children. This will also include posts that put down Christianity in general or any posts considered as blasphemy by staff (this is a CHRISTIAN FORUMS site), or posts that put down another Christian group or denomination. This includes links to websites in profiles and signatures.
We encourage civil and respectfull discussions.
Thank you,
John
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
