What proof would you need? (2)

[Huram Abi]

OK then what other books in the bible can be ignored as not being “Strictly Literal”?

The account in genesis was passed on to Abraham from eye witness accounts of the flood from the survivors of the ark (probably Noah who was still alive at time of Abraham) (flood 1600 years since creation from Adam to Seth, Enos to Noah).

What evidence do you have of these claims?

 

[Huram Abi]

And speaking of the literal method, Jesus interpreted the Scriptures literally.

When? When speaking in parables?

You mean like this?:


Jhn 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

Jhn 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

Jhn 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

Jhn 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

Jhn 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

Jhn 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.


Heresy!!!

 

[Astridhere]

Astridhere: what study and what scientists are you talking about? I'm awaiting an answer..

I have provided data of 290myo whale bones. Stop pretending I have not provided substance to my claim. It is you lot that can do nothing more that hide behind denial.

No, because what's there is actually based on evidence and research. The bible is not. It could've been written by anyone, no one really knows.
I am not talking here just about the bible and biblical creation. I am talking about science that you refuse to defend
I have yet to see one (1) instance where different dating methods provide significantly different results.

Michigan's Fossil Whales
Fossils That Are Found in Michigan | eHow.com

It looks like I win again creationists. These evolutionists absolutley refuse to address my challenge. They will talk about anything except the issue at hand.

Let's see Progmonk, Huram Abi so far have responded, that I can see, and not one word to defend their reasons as to why these whale bones found in an area previously dated to 290myo would be redated to younger based on any thing more than their preconcieved evolutionary assumption.

They have used ploys of trying to turn this into a philosphical debate on the bible and strolled down many garden paths instead.

There has been nothing provided by evolutionsits to solidify their reasonings by data. Asides, requests for philosophical discussions and constant requests to provide supports or ignoring support provided has lost you evolutionists this debate. I expect that if any of you had anything of substance to say you would have provided it by now.

Whales dated to 290mya place whales very close to the Devonian and they were thriving then. This is evidence for creation also because there are no intermediates as creationists predict. Additionally, whales dated to 295mya falsifies you current whale ancestry tale, and you evos have provided nothing of substance as a plausible refute to my assertions. Indeed you evos haven't even provided a non plausible explanation backed by some quasi scientific evidence.

So by default, if nothing else, I win this debate.

Thanks folks...

How many times have creationists discussed their philosophies only to be told they are ignorant and to produce science and evidence for their claims. Now that I do provide evidence backed by a sound challenge you lot want to talk philosophy. Just great!

Now that I have won the challenge, Huram Abi, you do not have to discuss science and observation at all. You may now go ahead and discuss philosophy seeing as that is what you want to do..

 

[Huram Abi]

An unscientific opinion on your part….

Literal evolution is not provable and it defies the empirical evidence.

Mine is scientific…

Really? What is the scientific explanation for, not only the earth, but plants existing before the sun was even created?

 

[Huram Abi]

So by default, if nothing else, I win this debate.

Congratulations. Evolution is a myth.


Now what?

 

[Zaius137]

It's different sure but not diametrically opposed. Aren't we all made up of the same building blocks as the rest of creation? As dad suggested when I asked him this same question "You're made of stars?"


You must mean the logical proof of how science works. If you understand natural deduction and logic this might be a little more helpful:

(1) Γ (Given)
(2) B -> !A (Assumption)
(1) B (B is in &#915
(1,2) !A (-> Elimination on 2 given B)
(1) A (A is in &#915
(1,2) A & !A (& Introduction on !A and A)
() Contradiction

Not correct...

What on earth does that have to do with science?

Science proceeds from facts to laws to theories by a difficult-to-define process called induction. Induction includes pattern-recognition, brainstorming, tinkering, creative guessing and that elusive "insight". It is not a process of deductive logic.

Uses and Misuses of Logic.

 

[Keachian]

When? When speaking in parables?

You mean like this?:


Jhn 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

Jhn 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

Jhn 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

Jhn 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

Jhn 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

Jhn 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.


Heresy!!!

We must also remember that Jesus told us to eat him and drink his blood:

Luke 22 (ASV)
19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, [even] that which is poured out for you.

 

[Huram Abi]

I think it is safe to say that Jesus did certainly endorse a tradition of metaphor.

 

[Keachian]

Not correct...

Well actually it is perfectly well defined logic, trust me I'm a logician.

What on earth does that have to do with science?

Science proceeds from facts to laws to theories by a difficult-to-define process called induction. Induction includes pattern-recognition, brainstorming, tinkering, creative guessing and that elusive "insight". It is not a process of deductive logic.

Uses and Misuses of Logic.

Well it's not so much to do with science as to how you are trying to disprove science, you are setting up your assumption ln. 2 then finding evidence to go with it ln. 3 and then totally disregarding the people who come along with a better understanding of the evidence base and pointing out that your assumption doesn't hold, ln 4ff

 

[Zaius137]

Really? What is the scientific explanation for, not only the earth, but plants existing before the sun was even created?

How do you get to planets being created before the sun? I see Gen 1:1 saying heavens and the earth.

 

[Zaius137]

Well actually it is perfectly well defined logic, trust me I'm a logician.


Well it's not so much to do with science as to how you are trying to disprove science, you are setting up your assumption ln. 2 then finding evidence to go with it ln. 3 and then totally disregarding the people who come along with a better understanding of the evidence base and pointing out that your assumption doesn't hold, ln 4ff

Are you a tap dancer or what… we were talking about science and logic…
I call this the old bait and switch. Only valid for dyed in the wool evolutionists.

 

[Keachian]

How do you get to planets being created before the sun? I see Gen 1:1 saying heavens and the earth.

Well if we want to go with "planets" rather than "plants" God created the earth (erets) on day 3 and the sun on day 4, or isn't the earth a planet?

 

[Keachian]

Are you a tap dancer or what… we were talking about science and logic…
I call this the old bait and switch. Only valid for dyed in the wool evolutionists.

Well it can also work as a rather rudimentary representation of the scientific process.

 

[Huram Abi]

I see day 3 proceeded by day 4.

Your literal interpretation doesn't allow you to see "heavens" as "sun."

Day 4 specifically references the sun, however.



Do you recognize this inconsistency?

 

[Zaius137]

Well it can also work as a rather rudimentary representation of the scientific process.

No it doesn’t… Are you arguing with my citation?
I only get this way when I am talking to the hard headed…

 

[Zaius137]

I see day 3 proceeded by day 4.

Your literal interpretation doesn't allow you to see "heavens" as "sun."

Day 4 specifically references the sun, however.



Do you recognize this inconsistency?

I clearly see day 2 when electromagnetic radiation came into existence.


Gen 1:3
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
(ASV)

 

[Keachian]

No it doesn’t… Are you arguing with my citation?
I only get this way when I am talking to the hard headed…

I'll quote my original post, you are quite correct that inductive reasoning is how we do science, my original point was that your reasoning is deductive and doesn't actually do what you want it to. Sorry about any confusion that I perpetrated, I got confused myself

No, evolution is not "diametrically opposed" to creation. And disproving one does not prove the other. I went through this with Astrid.

Say you've got some body of evidence in science, let's call it 'Γ' and you decide that regardless of what is actually in Γ that B implies that A isn't in there, because you know that B is in there and you don't know or care about whether A is or isn't in there. So because of your decision that B implies that A isn't in there, you assume that A isn't actually in Γ. If you find out later that A actually is in Γ this means that your assumption that B means there is no A is a false assumption, it tells us no new information about B it doesn't even mean we need to remove B from our body of evidence, just that our assumption was wrong.

 

[Zaius137]

I'll quote my original post, you are quite correct that inductive reasoning is how we do science, my original point was that your reasoning is deductive and doesn't actually do what you want it to. Sorry about any confusion that I perpetrated, I got confused myself

I know I should just quit now…

My point is that evolution if true excludes creation, if creation is true it excludes evolution. Diametrically opposed theories can not exist at the same time (except in quantum physics). So if evolution claims the high ground of scientific proof (it often does) my first task is to show inconsistencies of those “proofs”. This is true of any hypothesis or theory and is accepted in the scientific community for degrading a hypothesis or theory.

 

[mzungu]

So by default, if nothing else, I win this debate.

SUCH VANITY!!!!!

 

[Keachian]

My point is that evolution if true excludes creation, if creation is true it excludes evolution.

OK can we just stop and define our terms here, from my diction I'd define creation as the universe, however you are defining it as the literalistic reading of the Bible known as creationism. From my understanding the quoted excerpt above is a complete contradiction.

Diametrically opposed theories can not exist at the same time (except in quantum physics).

This is a misunderstanding of Physics in general, quantum physics atm cannot be linked in our understanding to the general theory of relativity, this is the problem in physics.

So if evolution claims the high ground of scientific proof (it often does) my first task is to show inconsistencies of those “proofs”. This is true of any hypothesis or theory and is accepted in the scientific community for degrading a hypothesis or theory.

Can we look at that link you posted again? Let's talk through that about evolution. So what are the facts? We have observed speciation, ring species, genetic mutations and the ability to clade organisms together based on similarities, yes or no?