Truth and Science

[AV1611VET]

And you don't? Why should anyone rewrite evolution and/or scientific history to placate your presuppositions?

So I can provide you with some entertainment?

 

[Nathan Poe]

So I can provide you with some entertainment?

We don't need to change a thing for that.

 

[random325nicaea]

I don't know.

What would it have been called before the Europeans named it?

That's not the question though.

The question goes: What was it, before it was called Australia?

Q. What was Pl... skip that one.

Q. What was Mars before it was called Mars?

A. Mars.

bah word play -_-

btw, australia didn't have a name before Europeans came to it, the aboriginals didn't know of any other landmasses, so they never named it.
btw, neither did the bible.

 

[Hespera]

So I can provide you with some entertainment?

You have an international audience! Including translations into Chinese.
What do you think about that?

 

[AV1611VET]

bah word play -_-

btw, australia didn't have a name before Europeans came to it, the aboriginals didn't know of any other landmasses, so they never named it.
btw, neither did the bible.

--- Oh man.

Just skip it --- it's a joke anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have an international audience! Including translations into Chinese.
What do you think about that?

Huh?

 

[Nathan Poe]

--- Oh man.

Just skip it --- it's a joke anyway.

AV -- if you want to be our entertainment, get better jokes.

I know it's difficult -- you peaked at "Neptune is a warning beacon for renegade angels," but you've got to at least put in some effort.

BTW, your critiques of uniformitism are starting to sound a lot like dad's schtick -- you're not going to get anywhere in this business stealing someone else's act.

 

[Naraoia]

That's correct.That's obvious.Which came first? God, or reality?

Reality, of course.

Unless you're claiming that God is not part of reality = and Atheists have been saying that all along.

I was beaten to it again

 

[AV1611VET]

BTW, your critiques of uniformitism are starting to sound a lot like dad's schtick -- you're not going to get anywhere in this business stealing someone else's act.

I could advise you to get a Defender's Study Bible and read what [the late] Dr. Morris says about uniformitarianism, but I have a feeling you would abstain.

You seem to pride yourself on the knowledge of mythology more than anything, and I suspect that's why you make so many mistakes in your posts.

"Rookie errors," I like to call them.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I could advise you to get a Defender's Study Bible and read what [the late] Dr. Morris says about uniformitarianism, but I have a feeling you would abstain.

If your take on it comes from him, and it's quickly degenerating into dad-level blather, why bother going to the source?

When a sewer worker is dealing with a leaking pipe, he doesn't need to follow it all the way back to the toilet.

You seem to pride yourself on the knowledge of mythology more than anything, and I suspect that's why you make so many mistakes in your posts.

You pride yourself on your own presuppositions more than anything, and I suspect that's why you never bother to correct my alleged mistakes.

"Rookie errors," I like to call them.

That's nice, AV -- will you be entertaining us anytime soon? I'm on a bit of a busy schedule this week.

 

[Hespera]

--- Oh man.

Just skip it --- it's a joke anyway.

That is how we take everything you say! Its a kind of dead pan humour, pretending to take it all seriously. Didnt you know?

 

[Alunyel]

Haha, something that exists outside of reality doesn't exist. It isn't real.

That has to be your funniest joke, yet, Av.

I still wouldn't recommend Stand Up, though.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

How much Truth are we expected to surrender before we can adequately embrace science?

Truth should never be abandoned. It should be uncompromisingly sought at all costs.

What you should give up however is personal dogmatic bias. That serves nothing really ('cept of course your sense of self rightousness and holiness). What was it Lennon said... "imagine no religion".

 

[thaumaturgy]

I could advise you to get a Defender's Study Bible and read what [the late] Dr. Morris says about uniformitarianism.

Yawn...so what did the great Dr. Morris say about Uniformitarianism?

(Sorry if I don't have time to read DR. MORRIS'S gospel. I've read the Bible. Does that count? I might have missed Dr. Morris's book in the bible since I didn't read the Apocrypha.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Yawn...so what did the great Dr. Morris say about Uniformitarianism?

(Sorry if I don't have time to read DR. MORRIS'S gospel. I've read the Bible. Does that count? I might have missed Dr. Morris's book in the bible since I didn't read the Apocrypha.)

What a pity.

Your attitude will serve as a blinder, but here it is anyway:

It is widely taught today that the earth is 4.6 billion years old and that the universe anywhere from 8.0 billion years old to eternally old. The Bible, on the other hand, indicates the universe to be only a few thousand years old, and all known human history (as recorded in the historical annals of Egypt, Sumeria and other ancient nations) also is limited to a few thousand years.

The great ages needed to make evolutionism appear feasible are based mainly on a handful of very slow radioactive decay processes (uranium to lead, potassium to argon, etc.). These must each be based on at least three unprovable assumptions:

• Known initial boundary conditions (assumption of no initial radiogenic lead in the uranium/lead mineral).
• Isolated system (no ingrss or egress of components of the sytem during the times it is functioning).
• Constant rate of process (no effect of environmental radiations or any other force on the decay rate).

None of these assumptions are capable of either proof or disproof since conditions are unknown prior to recorded history. All are known to be wrong in almost all natural processes.

On the other hand, there are scores of worldwide natural processes which, even with the above "uniformitarian" assumptions, will indicate ages far too brief for evolution to be feasible. Some of these are listed in the accompanying tabulation, with references for each.

These may all be wrong, of course, because they are all based on the same unreasonable assumptions as for the very few processes that yield old ages.

However, there are many more of them, and the assumptions are more likely to be valid for short time periods than for long periods. Therefore, the weight of scientific evidence (entirely apart from the definitive and conclusive evidence of Biblical revelation) is that the universe is young.

-Defender's Study Bible, by [the late] Dr. Henry M. Morris

 

[Amoeba]

How much Truth are we expected to surrender before we can adequately embrace science?

The most dangerous belief is one that can't be changed. When science contradicts a particular interpretation of whatever religious belief, then it is the religious belief which must change, not the science. Embracing science doesn't mean surrendering truth and to believe is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. And having the most radical interpretation of the bible doesn't make you any closer to God.

Read on...

In the thirteenth century Thomas Aquinas, like St. Augustine, asserted the need to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering while cautioning "that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should not adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."

To a large extent the early Christian Church Fathers read creation history as an allegory with the spiritual meaning seen as more important than the literal, without denying the literal meaning. In the first century Saint Paul described Genesis 2:24 as an allegory meaning Christ and the Church, and Philo described creation as happening simultaneously, with the six days of creation meeting a need for order and according with a perfect number. Jewish writers such as Abraham ibn Ezra could be described as creationists, while consistently rejecting overly literal understandings of Genesis. Maimonides states that parts of Genesis 1-3 cannot be taken literally.

Augustine of Hippo emphasised that the text was difficult to understand and should be reinterpreted as new knowledge became available. In particular, Christians should not make absurd dogmatic interpretations of scripture which contradict what people know from physical evidence.

1) THE CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE OF AUGUSTINE'S VIEW OF CREATION
2) The First Book of the Treatise on The Allegories of the Sacred Laws
3) Forster, Roger; Marston, Dr Paul (2001). "Chapter 7 - Genesis Through History". Reason Science and Faith. Chester, England: Monarch Books. ISBN 1854244418.
4) Davis A. Young (1988). "The contemporary relevance of Augustine". Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

What a pity.

Your attitude will serve as a blinder, but here it is anyway:-Defender's Study Bible, by [the late] Dr. Henry M. Morris

Except of course, Dr. Morris was wrong. Again, leaving out pertinent data so as to mislead the sheeples.

Why is it, do you think, that these blunders are not pointed out by the scientific community? Just curious.

 

[Amoeba]

Haha, something that exists outside of reality doesn't exist. It isn't real.

What exactly is reality? Is it possible in your view for there to be realities outside of what we can detect?

 

[random325nicaea]

"It is widely taught today that the earth is 4.6 billion years old and that the universe anywhere from 8.0 billion years old to eternally old."

WOW!~
when was this written? 1890?
13.5-14.0 is the latest figure...way to keep up to date....

"and all known human history (as recorded in the historical annals of Egypt, Sumeria and other ancient nations) also is limited to a few thousand years."
they are defining human history here as written history....
we got murals, cave paintings, pottery, burial sites, settlements that go way further then 4000BC....

"he great ages needed to make evolutionism appear feasible are based mainly on a handful of very slow radioactive decay processes (uranium to lead, potassium to argon, etc.). These must each be based on at least three unprovable assumptions:"

aawwwhh SHIIIE**
here we go again with the "unproven assumptions".
im getting mighty sick of this, especially since it's been thoroughly refuted so many times...(they left out a "few" more dating isotopes as well btw....)

"Constant rate of process (no effect of environmental radiations or any other force on the decay rate)."

radioactive decay of these elements has NOTHING to do with external radiation.
i've had this thorougly explained to me by aphysisict at freehovind (*go figure) and you probably have also had this explained here (since this forum is a lot bigger).

"Isolated system (no ingrss or egress of components of the sytem during the times it is functioning)."

if it's crystalized, and shows no signes of reheating or other contamination...why not?
do you even know how the process works? apparently Morris doesn't otherwise he wouldn't put forth 3.

"None of these assumptions are capable of either proof or disproof since conditions are unknown prior to recorded history. All are known to be wrong in almost all natural processes."

/start piling on the lies....

"On the other hand, there are scores of worldwide natural processes which, even with the above "uniformitarian" assumptions, will indicate ages far too brief for evolution to be feasible. "

a delta forming in 5 million years means the entire earth is 5 million years old? nope.

we all know what we are gona get now...haphazard creationist datign tecniques and cherry picking geological formations. not to forget bad logic.

"These may all be wrong, of course, because they are all based on the same unreasonable assumptions as for the very few processes that yield old ages."

like erosion? magnatized rocks? volcanism? sedementation?

"However, there are many more of them, and the assumptions are more likely to be valid for short time periods than for long periods. Therefore, the weight of scientific evidence (entirely apart from the definitive and conclusive evidence of Biblical revelation) is that the universe is young."

and more lies...

funny, he had to put

"(entirely apart from the definitive and conclusive evidence of Biblical revelation)"

in...almsot like admitting he had the conclusion to start with...

tbh, this shouldn't be new to anyone fimiliar with the entire "evolution vs creation" farce...
it's already been debunked, but just like the bacterial flagellum, they keep repeating it....

(funny how morris refers to the conclusion of an old earht as "evolutionism" it almost sound like he's actually attacking ToE....)

 

[random325nicaea]

amoeba....AV will just way that away with "THOSE WHERE EVIL CATHOLICS"

i get the creeping feeling that AV is one of those people who wouldn't call Catholics "christians"...