What proof would you need? (2)

CabVet · Feb 11, 2012

SkyWriting said:
That would be a repeatable, natural process.
Boy, this is not sinking in.

It MUST be a natural process in order for it to be substantiated.
SO...if God was involved, it cannot be substantiated....because its not a natural event.

See #4 below.

Oh, I see...

Hypothesis: God did it
Evidence: the Bible says God did it
Conclusion: God did it

Non sequitur · Feb 11, 2012

AV1611VET said:
-- Here we go again.

And atheists can't get married in churches, right?

Are you so afraid of thinking you would have to give up medical treatment, that you won't become a Christian?

Is that what is holding you back?

Afraid you'll have to cancel your doctor's appointment?

Afraid you'll have to become a creationist?

Afraid you'll have to march off to liberate Jerusalem of infidels?

Afraid you'll have to start hunting witches?

Afraid you'll have to put someone on trial by ordeal?

Afraid you'll have to justify your beliefs with Boolean standards?

Afraid you'll actually understand Genesis 1?

Is this what is really holding you guys back?

I'm waiting for Christian Microbiology to be better understood, personally.

Don't wanna take any chances...

SkyWriting · Feb 11, 2012

CabVet said:
Oh, I see...

Hypothesis: God did it
Evidence: the Bible says God did it
Conclusion: God did it

Hey, I didn't write the rules for science.
The rule is "natural explanations only". (#4 below)
They are very firm on that.

If you want proof that includes the supernatural,
guess what,
Science won't publish it.

Don't blame me. I don't write the rules.
I'm as upset about it as you are.

AV1611VET · Feb 11, 2012

SkyWriting said:
If you want proof that includes the supernatural,
guess what,
Science won't publish it.

The New Age Movement in the States usually makes their pitches to the scientific community.

If they can get scientific accreditation for their beliefs, then they're pretty-much on easy street.

The American Psychological Association has quasi-scientific backing, Alcoholics Anonymous has quasi-scientific backing for their [Satanic] 12-Step philosophy, as has others.

Some have made pitches to science -- and failed.

ESP, clairvoyants, and telekenitics made pitches to science, and failed their tests.

The Maharishi tried in vain to pitch his Transcendental Meditation -- without success.

Norma L. McCorvey wouldn't have been successful without scientists backing her.

SkyWriting · Feb 11, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Alcoholics Anonymous has quasi-scientific backing for their [Satanic] 12-Step philosophy..

I'd never heard that. I'll have to keep an eye open on that topic.

Astridhere · Feb 11, 2012

Huram Abi said:
Right. That the bible claims this is established.

I'm asking for scientific evidence to substantiate the claim.

Originally Posted by SkyWriting

If plants existed before the sun, it would be by God's own hand.
The only evidence of this would be in scripture that God breathed
into existence. Which is what we find

The fact that after all the great advances in evo research and lab set ups and still evos are unable to demonstrate how a functioning and complex factory poofed into existence. You cannot create a living reproducing organism from non life. Hence this is strong support for the breath of life, that spark from God, being required to create the living from the non living.

Indeed the old bible writers knew the moon was created after the earth and naturalists laughed at this also asking for 'magical' explanations. Now they agree that the moon was indeed created after the formation of the earth. Too bad you naturalists did not listen to the bible in the first place and let your convolutions lead the way instead.

The bible speaks to many unknown scientific facts before their confirmation by modern science, like the springs and mountains in the sea, hygiene rules to the Isrealites, the circle of the earth at a time the earth was thought to be flat and many many more.

Why would anyone that has faith in the bible think that just because you lot ridicule some biblical assertions that anyone should aside with you?

Astridhere · Feb 11, 2012

CabVet said:
Oh, I see...

Hypothesis: God did it
Evidence: the Bible says God did it
Conclusion: God did it

Hypothesis = It all evolved

Evidence = Evolutionists have many likely's maybe's and possibly's on the how, when, where and why it all evolved that are all still up for grabs by any researcher.

Conclusion: It all evolved because after 150 years of falsifications evos still say so.

Astridhere · Feb 11, 2012

Non sequitur said:
I'm waiting for Christian Microbiology to be better understood, personally.

Don't wanna take any chances...

Don't worry about Christian interpretations untill you lot of biologists catch up on what you yourselves are talking about.

Creationist interpretations use observation as their base as opposed to non plausible scenarios. You will have difficulty with this.

Non sequitur · Feb 11, 2012

Astridhere said:
Don't worry about Christian interpretations untill you lot of biologists catch up on what you yourselves are talking about.

Creationist interpretations use observation as their base as opposed to non plausible scenarios. You will have difficulty with this.

The beauty of science is in the application. Can you give an example of a practical application of 'creation science'?

Not study or not acedemia, but application (offering insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing).

SkyWriting · Feb 11, 2012

Non sequitur said:
The beauty of science is in the application. Can you give an example of a practical application of 'creation science'?

Not study or not acedemia, but application (offering insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing).

"Creation Science" and those who call themselves "Creation Scientists" strongly encourage everyone to investigate the physical world and decide for themselves how to interpret what they find. Many of them are current and former scientists in the field and have practiced applied science their entire careers.

They bring more religious people into the study of Science than any other religious group in operation. I don't see how anyone can find fault with that and I can't think of any more practical application for their efforts. Even if I don't agree with everything they teach.

Non sequitur · Feb 11, 2012

SkyWriting said:
"Creation Science" and those who call themselves "Creation Scientists" strongly encourage everyone to investigate the physical world and decide for themselves how to interpret what they find. Many of them are current and former scientists in the field and have practiced applied science their entire careers.

That sounds like: Reality 2.0, now with "+x"!

People are just asserting "x", because they feel they have to.

SkyWriting said:
"
They bring more religious people into the study of Science than any other religious group in operation. I don't see how anyone can find fault with that and I can't think of any more practical application for their efforts. Even if I don't agree with everything they teach.

I would think the best way to bring religious people into the study of science would be by, say, showing them the benefits of science.

I mean, I'm all for it.

It just seems like it's an unfortunate and unnecessary step.

Astridhere · Feb 11, 2012

Non sequitur says

The beauty of science is in the application. Can you give an example of a practical application of 'creation science'?

Not study or not acedemia, but application (offering insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing).

Skywriting has offered a good response.

Here is one example of research and its application to creation science.

Review of J. C. Sanford's
Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome

Genetic Entropy

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_1/j21_1_43-47.pdf

Let's not forget that you are actually requesting more than evolutionists themselves can supply at present.

The when, where, why and how of evolution is still being debated by evos and is still up for grabs.

Astridhere · Feb 11, 2012

Non sequitur said:
That sounds like: Reality 2.0, now with "+x"!

People are just asserting "x", because they feel they have to.

I would think the best way to bring religious people into the study of science would be by, say, showing them the benefits of science.

I mean, I'm all for it.

It just seems like it's an unfortunate and unnecessary step.

It appears evos are unable to separate true advances in medicine from the assumptions of evolution.

There is even huge debate re AIDS and HIV
http://aras.ab.ca/aidsquotes.htm
http://www.duesberg.com/articles/bginterview.html

Indeed what medical science has found out is that chimps organs are not going to save mankind and neither will their blood. It is a shame ALL your intermediates mysteriosly disappeared although they cohabited with other species throughout time. If just one of them survived then perhaps TOE may have been of some use to medical advancement. Unfortunately that is not the case.

Huram Abi · Feb 11, 2012

Astridhere said:
Originally Posted by SkyWriting

If plants existed before the sun, it would be by God's own hand.
The only evidence of this would be in scripture that God breathed
into existence. Which is what we find

1) You cannot create a living reproducing organism from non life.

2) Indeed the old bible writers knew the moon was created after the earth and naturalists laughed at this also asking for 'magical' explanations. Now they agree that the moon was indeed created after the formation of the earth.

3) Why would anyone that has faith in the bible think that just because you lot ridicule some biblical assertions that anyone should aside with you?

1) No one is claiming that you can. So that's a strawman.

2)The old bible writers had a 50-50 chance of being right on whether the moon existed first or after the earth. But then they blew it when they paired it's creation with the sun, rendering them with a 0% chance of being right. In fact, they got it completely wrong when they paired the 2.

I explained that to you before and you never bothered to acknowledge the point.

3) I'm not ridiculing the bible. That's another strawman. And the exercise of asking for the same type of evidence for the veracity of the bible as the science you ridicule for lack of understanding, despite the evidence. I'm just curious of the degree to which you might be able to recognize your hypocrisy.

Non sequitur · Feb 11, 2012

Astridhere said:
Non sequitur says

The beauty of science is in the application. Can you give an example of a practical application of 'creation science'?

Not study or not acedemia, but application (offering insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing).

Skywriting has offered a good response.

Here is one example of research and its application to creation science.

Review of J. C. Sanford's
Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome

Genetic Entropy

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_1/j21_1_43-47.pdf

Let's not forget that you are actually requesting more than evolutionists themselves can supply at present.

The when, where, why and how of evolution is still being debated by evos and is still up for grabs.

I mean an application that science could not have otherwise come up with.

Not something found, then you apply your theology to it. That's backwards.

It's interesting to note that the whole summary (btw, the front page looks like the cover of a late '80s sci-fi VHS tape cover) was nothing but scientific research and observations.

Except the end, "The conclusion is that we were created perfect, have been headed downhill ever since and the human race cannot be a thousand generation old yet. Solutions are not in better technology but a relationship with God who will take us out of this decaying creation at the proper time. "

Aaaaannnd assertion, assertion, assertion...

Non sequitur · Feb 11, 2012

Astridhere said:
It appears evos are unable to separate true advances in medicine from the assumptions of evolution.

There is even huge debate re AIDS and HIV
Is 'HIV' Really the Cause of AIDS? Are there really only 'a few' scientists who doubt this?
Duesberg on AIDS- Article Spin Magazine

Indeed what medical science has found out is that chimps organs are not going to save mankind and neither will their blood. It is a shame ALL your intermediates mysteriosly disappeared although they cohabited with other species throughout time. If just one of them survived then perhaps TOE may have been of some use to medical advancement. Unfortunately that is not the case.

I would bother with responding, but after seeing this in your sig, I'm just going to ignore you.

"Darwin is liked by evolutionists because he liberated science from the straitjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers. This gave professional evolutionists job security so they can wander through biology labs as if they belong there."

Darwin is like by "evolutionists" (whatever that is) because he discovered a truth, that had not previously been thoroughly expanded upon.

Stop taking any vaccines (evil biologists!) and put your tinfoil hat back on.

Astridhere · Feb 11, 2012

Huram Abi says

1) No one is claiming that you can. So that's a strawman.
Indeed this is not a straw man at all. The whole idea of evolution without God is that life can arise without Him and that has not been observed. It is no wonder that evolutionists have separated abiogenesis from evolution.
2)The old bible writers had a 50-50 chance of being right on whether the moon existed first or after the earth. But then they blew it when they paired it's creation with the sun, rendering them with a 0% chance of being right. In fact, they got it completely wrong when they paired the 2.

I explained that to you before and you never bothered to acknowledge the point. You explained nothing. What you did is aside. It does not matter what they used to think. It does matter that the evidence now suggests the bible writers got it RIGHT.
Earth-Asteroid Collision Formed Moon Later Than Thought
I would ignore a response that does not address the point, which is simply that bible writers, regardless of all the intelligencia of whom wrote what and when, knew the moon was created AFTER the earth because they were inspired by God. That was the salient point that you conveniently overlooked.

3) I'm not ridiculing the bible. That's another strawman. And the exercise of asking for the same type of evidence for the veracity of the bible as the science you ridicule for lack of understanding, despite the evidence. I'm just curious of the degree to which you might be able to recognize your hypocrisy.

There is no hypocrisy when the best you lot have to offer is 150 years or more of falsifications as compared to an old book that gets it right eg the moon. Why disregard the Bible on any point when the best you have is changing convoluted contradictions that do not amount to science at all.

Here is an example

Perlegen's microarray technology shows that the human and chimpanzee genomes are more different than previously thought. In yellow, researchers have circled areas of the genome that have been rearranged over time.
You Can't Make a Monkey Out of Us#

NOT FROM A CREATIONIST SOURCE.

Huge chunks of genomic material is missing in the human genome compared to chimps. There are insertions and duplicationsdifferences in expression and hot spots. Also there is HGT and epigentic inheritance that you guys have to screen for, where again anomolies are hand waved away with invented terms based on an assumtion and nothing more. Hence the assertion that comparisons between kinds is fruitless and unquantifiable. You search for ghosts and find them then suggest that is evidence for evolution.

So where does this leave you guys? Up the creek with an algorithm in hand that is scewed and biased, that ignores differences, and suggests that any similarity at all suggests an ancestral connection.

Every single evolutionary support is based on biased nonsense.

Observation demonstrates that functioning systems of any kind can not evolve into any other because the selection of an intermediate under developed system is useless and will not be selected for. eg placental mammals.

The fact that there are such differences in systems within various kinds is proof enough that they must have been created with a system that could not possibly have evolved.

If evolutionists were as clever as they would like to think they are, they should have worked this out for themselves. Instead they pose ridiculous non plausible scenarios based on likely's maybe's and possibly's and change their mind on the basis of one fossil find, instead of using OBSERVATION, some common sense and the higher reasoning ability God bestowed on mankind.

Huram Abi · Feb 11, 2012

Astridhere said:
1)

The whole idea of evolution without God is that life can arise without Him

2)

You explained nothing. What you did is aside. It does not matter what they used to think. It does matter that the evidence now suggests the bible writers got it RIGHT.

3)

I would ignore a response that does not address the point, which is simply that bible writers, regardless of all the intelligencia of whom wrote what and when, knew the moon was created AFTER the earth because they were inspired by God. That was the salient point that you conveniently overlooked.

1) That IS NOT the whole idea of evolution. So it is a strawman.

2) No, they didn't. They said that the sun and moon were created at the same time. That's simply wrong.

3) I overlooked nothing. Had they not said that the sun, too was made after the earth along with the moon, they would have been correct. But they didn't and they were wrong.

How, then, can this mean that they were inspired by God?

It simply means that they thought the earth was made before everything else, which is wrong. The fact that some things, like the moon, came after earth does not negate the fact that the sun did not.

SkyWriting · Feb 11, 2012

Huram Abi said:
The fact that some things, like the moon, came after earth does not negate the fact that the sun did not.

We don't know how things happened.
But we have a few theories.
And you know how science is always correcting itself.
And enjoys it.

Notedstrangeperson · Feb 11, 2012

Meh ...

1000th post!

What proof would you need? (2)

Question everything

Wokest Bae Of The Forum

The Librarian

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

The Librarian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wokest Bae Of The Forum

The Librarian

Wokest Bae Of The Forum

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Huram Abi

Guest

Wokest Bae Of The Forum

Wokest Bae Of The Forum

Well-Known Member

Huram Abi

Guest

The Librarian

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency