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.
So the Flood was over half a million years ago?Antarctica didn't exist prior to the Flood.
The entire Earth was one tropical paradise.
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
I would consider Michael Behe to be the exception, he has stated testable hypotheses about the inability of evolutionary mechanisms to produce several known situations. That said, to my knowledge, all of them have been followed up by research to elucidate viable potential pathways. That said, he deserves credit for trying.When there are competing hypothesis the ones with the best evidence and or predictions are the ones that win out. I know one of the complaints of creationists are that they are not given a chance and in some situations that may be true. The situations that I am aware all have to do with intelligent design which so far hasn't been able to present a testable hypothesis. I have not observed any scientific hypotheses on the major creationists organizations: AIG, ICR and DI only things I've is seen from them are criticisms of scientists and science research.
I love it! The post ends on "for example" and then crickets.Not true. There have been creation scientists who have come up with hypothesis' for the Grand canyon formation, for example
That is true. Unfortunately for him his hypotheses failed. When he would not admit that is when he lost credibility as a scientist. One can be wrong when one is a scientist, but one cannot be dishonest or ignore when his hypotheses fail.I would consider Michael Behe to be the exception, he has stated testable hypotheses about the inability of evolutionary mechanisms to produce several known situations. That said, to my knowledge, all of them have been followed up by research to elucidate viable potential pathways. That said, he deserves credit for trying.
that was some 55 million years ago. Nobody had created God yet.I believe it appeared when God broke Pangaea up into five separate continents.
When Europe was pulled apart from America, it appeared as "collateral damage."
I don't think you can actually call it a complete failure, but there is also no positive evidence. He might yet come up with something that is actually irreducibly complex. He is entitled so long as he continues to propose testable hypotheses. One could argue that plate tectonics was also a faith position for quite a while.That is true. Unfortunately for him his hypotheses failed. When he would not admit that is when he lost credibility as a scientist. One can be wrong when one is a scientist, but one cannot be dishonest or ignore when his hypotheses fail.
That is true, he could find an example. I should have been clearer since all of the examples that he cited were refuted. An example could be found that is irreducibly complex. But until an example is found it merely a hypothesis that has no supporting evidence. In the sciences hypotheses are not accepted until there is strong evidence for them.I don't think you can actually call it a complete failure, but there is also no positive evidence. He might yet come up with something that is actually irreducibly complex. He is entitled so long as he continues to propose testable hypotheses. One could argue that plate tectonics was also a faith position for quite a while.
I was teasing.That is true, he could find an example. I should have been clearer since all of the examples that he cited were refuted. An example could be found that is irreducibly complex. But until an example is found it merely a hypothesis that has no supporting evidence. In the sciences hypotheses are not accepted until there is strong evidence for them.
As to plate tectonics there was evidence that caused supported it. I am not sure that if there was a testable hypothesis for it when Wegener first proposed it. He based it on more than just continental shapes. He was also able to match rock strata and fossils across the continents.
4.1 Alfred Wegener and the Theory of Plate Tectonics – Introduction to Oceanography
Of course it was testable once magnetic surveys of the seafloor were taken and the evidence was such a slam dunk that even creationists have had to accept it and try to make ridiculous ad hoc explanation for it.
I don't think you can actually call it a complete failure, but there is also no positive evidence. He might yet come up with something that is actually irreducibly complex. He is entitled so long as he continues to propose testable hypotheses. One could argue that plate tectonics was also a faith position for quite a while.
Ye hydroplate theoryThat is true, he could find an example. I should have been clearer since all of the examples that he cited were refuted. An example could be found that is irreducibly complex. But until an example is found it merely a hypothesis that has no supporting evidence. In the sciences hypotheses are not accepted until there is strong evidence for them.
As to plate tectonics there was evidence that caused supported it. I am not sure that if there was a testable hypothesis for it when Wegener first proposed it. He based it on more than just continental shapes. He was also able to match rock strata and fossils across the continents.
4.1 Alfred Wegener and the Theory of Plate Tectonics – Introduction to Oceanography
Of course it was testable once magnetic surveys of the seafloor were taken and the evidence was such a slam dunk that even creationists have had to accept it and try to make ridiculous ad hoc explanation for it.
that was some 55 million years ago. Nobody had created God yet.
The Grand Canyon is not a rift valley. It is an river eroded canyon. Formed by erosion.
Love it. Imagine the Fountains of the Great Deep erupting with such force as to blow chunks of the Earth into space to form the Asteroid Belt. No fantasy is too preposterous if it saves a literal reading of Genesis.Ye hydroplate theory
and you need to use smilies when referring to Wally's Wacky Hydroplate Theory to a geologist.Hydroplate theory. Youtube. Be there. Aloha.
Thanks for the term, Dan. I'd say that's pretty close, if not right on the money!The Grand Canyon is not a rift valley.
Which brought up an image from a long time ago of blowing chunks.Love it. Imagine the Fountains of the Great Deep erupting with such force as to blow chunks of the Earth into space to form the Asteroid Belt. No fantasy is too preposterous if it saves a literal reading of Genesis.
Estrid isn't the one with an ideology that denies that detail.Then let's see how you explain away that "inconvenient detail."
I would consider Michael Behe to be the exception, he has stated testable hypotheses about the inability of evolutionary mechanisms to produce several known situations. That said, to my knowledge, all of them have been followed up by research to elucidate viable potential pathways. That said, he deserves credit for trying.
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?