What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[pitabread]

What are you talking about? You still seem to be operating on a strawman.

I think this is yet another Dunning-Kruger case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is a statement of belief, not an oath.

And unless one agrees to it one cannot work there. That makes it the same as an oath, a promise. Whatever you want to call it. It is a statement that one will not follow the scientific method.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think this is yet another Dunning-Kruger case.

His running away from offers to go over the basics of science would seem to confirm that.

 

[MIDutch]

I didn't say that it had that word. I said that the controversy between science and religion didn't exist at the time he wrote it.

Why do you think that?

At that time, in that part of the world there were lots and lots of religions floating about. You don't think there was any conflict between religions or between religions and the knowledge of the day?

All these religions were all competing for the same base. What would they do or say to "prove" that they were the "true" religion.

Come up with stories that make more "common sense"?

What he's talking about there has nothing at all to do with a conflict between accepted science and biblical teaching.

Then what WAS he talking about?

It has already been documented that science as we know it didn't exist yet. And yet Augustine says (when) "a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience" what is he talking about?

Since you take issue with theis translation of his words, perhaps you would be so kind as to translate it for us and explain EXACTLY what he's talking about.

 

[Strathos]

Yes, over a sphere, not over the Earth. If that was the Earth and the bottom was Antarctica the tent would be under the Earth, not over it, from that perspective. You thought like a Flat Earther.

Not if the tent is open at the bottom, as tents often are.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Why do you think that?

At that time, in that part of the world there were lots and lots of religions floating about. You don't think there was any conflict between religions or between religions and the knowledge of the day?

The quote was used to try and establish a conflict between science and religion when the date of writing preceded any such conflict.

It's not an argument against creationism. The writer was a creationist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not if the tent is open at the bottom, as tents often are.

smh

 

[Al Touthentop]

His running away from offers to go over the basics of science would seem to confirm that.

You would be the last person I would consult on the basics of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The quote was used to try and establish a conflict between science and religion when the date of writing preceded any such conflict.

It's not an argument against creationism. The writer was a creationist.

He probably was a creationist. And the quote was not used to prove creationism an error. Though indirectly it did. What Augustine acknowledged is that some parts of the Bible could be shown to be wrong and excessive literalism harms Christianity.

 

[Al Touthentop]

And unless one agrees to it one cannot work there. That makes it the same as an oath, a promise. Whatever you want to call it. It is a statement that one will not follow the scientific method.

Ahh, what ever is convenient for your argument, that's what you'll propose. It has nothing to do with the "scientific method" whatever that is. LOL.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You would be the last person I would consult on the basics of science.

That is a pity. You trust people that openly lie instead of an honest person willing to help you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ahh, what ever is convenient for your argument, that's what you'll propose. It has nothing to do with the "scientific method" whatever that is. LOL.

Again you are not reasoning rationally. If one uses the scientific method one cannot assume an answer is absolutely correct ahead of time. But you do not want to learn what the scientific method is. Again, I will be quoting and linking sources. I will not use my personal version of the scientific method. You are using sources that if anything make up their own version of the scientific method. One does not get to do that.

 

[MIDutch]

Among other things, the energy release required would have vaporized the oceans.

I don't have the numbers handy, but IIRC Walt Brown said that something like the Noachian Flood released the energy equivalent of 30 trillion hydrogen bombs exploding (or some such silliness) according to his "scientific research (he was, after all, a famous creationist scientist) into the energy requirements required to smash the Earth's crust and "form" all of the geological formations we see on the planet's surface in the "documented" months of the flood. Somewhere along the way I calculated that that was the equivalent of 12 hydrogen bombs falling on the deck of Noah's wooden, slathered in flammable pitch, barge without ruffling a single hair or feather of any of the lions, oxen, mosquitoes, dinosaurs, etc. travelling inside.

My numbers in this post may be a little off (I'm still looking for the posts I wrote in another forum), but these sorts of creationist apologetics always amused the h3ll out of me.

 

[Al Touthentop]

“The real facts of science will always agree with biblical revelation because the God who made the world of God inspired the Word of God.

All origins research must begin with a premise.1 ICR holds that the biblical record of primeval history in Genesis 1–11 is factual, historical, and clearly understandable”

Doesn’t sound like they follow the scientific method.

Yet their members are scientists. It's a wonder how they graduated. What is "the scientific method" and where to I find the definition as posed by an actual scientist rather than someone who pretends to be one on an internet forum? Where do I find a singular, unified "scientific method" discussed by scientists whom you claim use this method?

 

[Al Touthentop]

Again you are not reasoning rationally. If one uses the scientific method one cannot assume an answer is absolutely correct ahead of time.

Well gee, you've just counted yourself out of the picture.

 

[pitabread]

I find the Christians that have responded to you to be much nicer persons than some of the agnostics/atheists that have contributed and have told me I'm ignorant.

I can't speak for everyone else on this forum. I will say that in my experience there are polite people of various faiths (and non-faiths) and also impolite people of various faiths (and non-faiths). I don't think people's personal philosophies necessarily define character in that way.

Also, FWIW, I've lost count of the number of times I've had Christians on this forum threaten me with entenal hellfire. Yet, oddly no atheists have done the same.

And being, apparently, in the field of science, you must surely know that there can be no proof for God.

I'm not in the field of science; I just have an active interest in it.

And I know that science cannot deal with the supernatural. That much is a given.

My simple statement was THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD...is that so difficult to understand? The bias is disheartening.

God is like the wind...
It cannot be seen,
but one knows it is present
because of its effects.

The problem with not being able to scientifically test the nature of God or its existence, how can then one demonstrate whether such claims are correct?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well gee, you've just counted yourself out of the picture.

How so? Careful, you do not want to break the Ninth Commandment.

 

[RDKirk]

All of this is true, but there were people who knew things about subjects that would latter be called science, even way back then. Don't forget, Eratosthenes had a rough calculation of the circumference of the the Earth in 240 BC and the Phoenicians had real world experience with the Earth being a sphere going all the way back to the 5th century BC, some 800 years before Augustine.

In other words, there probably were probably people walking around in Augustine's time that had knowledge, that would later be called scientific, that contradicted a literal and inerrant reading of the Bible, such as a flat Earth. Which is exactly what Augustine was addressing in his De Genesi ad litteram.

As far as I can tell, early Christians accepted the Greek understanding of a spheroidal earth. Many may have lost that knowledge later, as a great deal of Graeco-Roman technology and knowledge was lost.

However, Galileo's dispute with the Church was definitely not over a spheroidal planet--clearly the Church at that time had already accepted a spheroidal planet. Galileo's helio-centric theory had a couple of severe unanswered problems and was not accepted by the majority of scientists of his day. The Church had actually sided with the scientific majority...but Galileo got himself into hot water with the Church by personally insulting the pope, not because of his theory.

The issue Columbus had was not flat earth versus spheroidal earth (as is popularly taught in high school), but rather the size of the spheroidal earth. Columbus though Eratosthenes had grossly overestimated the size of the earth and that the huge western ocean was much smaller than was generally thought. He was wrong, and if not for the (then unknown) Americans in his path, he'd have set sail and probably would have never been heard of again.

 

[MIDutch]

That is a pity. You trust people that openly lie instead of an honest person willing to help you.

It's the creationist way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet their members are scientists. It's a wonder how they graduated. What is "the scientific method" and where to I find the definition as posed by an actual scientist rather than someone who pretends to be one on an internet forum? Where do I find a singular, unified "scientific method" discussed by scientists whom you claim use this method?

There are members that can do science in other fields. None of them can do science when it comes to the concept of creationism.

As to the scientific method you are right that none of them are written in stone, but in none of them is anyone allowed to assume that one is correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As far as I can tell, early Christians accepted the Greek understanding of a spheroidal earth. Many may have lost that knowledge later, as a great deal of Graeco-Roman technology and knowledge was lost.

However, Galileo's dispute with the Church was definitely not over a spheroidal planet--clearly the Church at that time had already accepted a spheroidal planet. Galileo's helio-centric theory had a couple of severe unanswered problems and was not accepted by the majority of scientists of his day. The Church had actually sided with the scientific majority...but Galileo got himself into hot water with the Church by personally insulting the pope, not because of his theory.

The issue Columbus had was not flat earth versus spheroidal earth (as is popularly taught in high school), but rather the size of the spheroidal earth. Columbus though Eratosthenes had grossly overestimated the size of the earth and that the huge western ocean was much smaller than was generally thought. He was wrong, and if not for the (then unknown) Americans in his path, he'd have set sail and probably would have never been heard of again.

Early Christians, yes. They probably believed in a spherical Earth. Early Hebrews probably not.