What Would It Take?

gentu · Apr 18, 2003

Yesterday at 10:03 PM SBfaithful said this in Post #19

I was just stating that there is no evidence that evolutionists or other scientists could give me that would me think that the Bible was not true.

OK SB, it just seemed that you were equating evolution with atheism, I'm sorry. I hope you realize, though, that almost all of the scientists here who argue about stuff like evolution are not trying to prove atheism, they are trying to correct a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of science foisted on people by false prophets like Kent Hovind.

Cantuar · Apr 18, 2003

A bunny with four legs and wings.

panterapat · Apr 18, 2003

"A lot of Christians do not have a problem reconciling science with the Bible, SB"

Any scientific evidence will move my opinion one way or the other. To me it is inconsequential how life was created. It is more important how life is lived. As for the creation of the universe- however it happened- God did it!

There is no conflict between faith and science. When all scientific facts are known, science will point to God. Many scientists today are thwarting the scientific method by presupposing that God cannot be the creator of the universe. A scientist should be open to ANY conclusion.

Zadok001 · Apr 18, 2003

panterapat:

When all scientific facts are known, science will point to God. Many scientists today are thwarting the scientific method by presupposing that God cannot be the creator of the universe. A scientist should be open to ANY conclusion.

Not quite. Science doesn't deal with the supernatural by definition. Science will tell us how the universe formed, and when it formed, but it won't tell us whether or not some deity formed it. As a result, science will *never* reach that conclusion. (Nor has science ever claimed that God did NOT create.)

Follower of Christ · Apr 18, 2003

Yesterday at 05:45 PM Zadok001 said this in Post #1

This question applies to every single person on this forum:

"What evidence would be required for you to change your views regarding the history of the universe?"

To clarify. The answer to this question cannot be "Proof of evolution" or "Proof of YECism." That's not what I'm asking. I'm not asking "What would it take for you to accept the opposite viewpoint of your own?" I'm asking, simply, what evidence could be presented to you that would cause you to rethink your current beliefs about the universe. What would make a YECist abandon the flood model? What would make an evolutionist deny common descent?

Answers should likely be examples of empirical evidence. "Proof" is not a good answer. "Fossil bunnies in the pre-Cambrian" is a good answer, and is indeed my own answer. I have no idea what answers a YECist might give, so I cannot reasonably give an example for them.

Why is it important to answer this question? Because it shows your beliefs to be, at least at some level, falsifiable. If you can answer this question, then some state of affairs can empirically exist which would cause you to reconsider your position. If you cannot answer this question, then your belief is not based on evidence, but rather purely on belief. Needless to say, such a condition ought not be advertised in a "Science" forum.

Additionally, by answering this question, we can give some purpose to discussions here. Does someone have a fossil bunny from the pre-Cambrian? Congrats, you've pushed me away from the ToE. Likewise, if YECs can give an example of empirical evidence that would convince them YECism is in error, and that evidence can be produced...

My response: Fossil bunnies in the pre-Cambrian.

For me it would take God Almighty Himself coming down and showing me His indentification, and saying something along the lines of ''GOTCHA''.

lucaspa · Apr 19, 2003

17th April 2003 at 05:45 PM Zadok001 said this in Post #1

This question applies to every single person on this forum:

"What evidence would be required for you to change your views regarding the history of the universe?"

what evidence could be presented to you that would cause you to rethink your current beliefs about the universe. ... Why is it important to answer this question? Because it shows your beliefs to be, at least at some level, falsifiable. 

Evolution isn't a belief. Why did you equate it to one? Why did you perpetrate the myth that YEC is a belief?

Both are scientific theories. What you are asking is: what evidence would you accept that the theory is falsified?

Now, if you will never accept that the theory is falsified, what you are demonstrating is that you have moved the scientific theory into the category of belief.

Mammalian fossils in pre-Cambrian rock to challenge common ancestry.

A structure or trait on one species that is only for the benefit of another species to challenge natural selection.

Those are about the only tests left for either that haven't been made and passed.

lucaspa · Apr 19, 2003

Yesterday at 03:55 AM panterapat said this in Post #23

As for the creation of the universe- however it happened- God did it!

Then you should be a theistic evolutionist.

There is no conflict between faith and science. When all scientific facts are known, science will point to God.

That is poor science by saying what the data is before you find it.  That way leads to falsifying data to make it come out the way you want.

Many scientists today are thwarting the scientific method by presupposing that God cannot be the creator of the universe. A scientist should be open to ANY conclusion.

How are they "thwarting the scientific method"? Since all ideas have to be tested against the physical universe in science, how would either presupposing God did create or that God didn't create thwart science?

Zadok001 · Apr 19, 2003

Follower of Christ:

Your statement implies that your agreement with the YEC hypothesis is not based on evidence. As such, what are you trying to accomplish by presenting and arguing in favor of evidence for the YEC hypothesis? This would seem inconsistant - Evidence is irrelevant to your perspective (since evidence cannot cause you to change your beliefs), yet you present it to us.

Follower of Christ · Apr 19, 2003

I have stated many times that your evidence IS mine.
Do you think that we are dealing with two different planets here?

Your evidence is very easily interpreted into my Young Earth Created in 6 literal days once the FALLABLE dating methods are dropped.

The only issue I am not satisfied with yet is Starlight.
I have seen some theory for this issue that can easily show how that fits into a young universe as well. I am not willing to show the source as I am not getting into that debate until I am satisfied with it.

BUT, even if it is NEVER answered, the rest of the evidence fits fine.

I have given my thoughts on ToE and the ''Strong Delusion'' (2 Thess. Chap 2) sent by God in the end against those who deny Gods truth.

If you wish, I can go over it again.

Zadok001 · Apr 19, 2003

Follower of Christ:

Perhaps I misinterpretted your statement. Is it possible for you to be convinced that the YEC hypothesis is incorrect based on scientific evidence presented to you? Could some empirical peice of evidence EVER convince you that Genesis does not overtly describe scientific realities?

WinAce · Apr 19, 2003

Today at 03:13 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #29

Your evidence is very easily interpreted into my Young Earth Created in 6 literal days once the FALLABLE dating methods are dropped.

Alright, everyone, let's bust out those unreplied-to links. See sig for mine.

MartinM · Apr 19, 2003

Do you think that we are dealing with two different planets here?

Sometimes I wonder...

Mechanical Bliss · Apr 19, 2003

Today at 03:13 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #29

I have stated many times that your evidence IS mine.

No, it's not because you simply disregard whatever you don't like.

Your evidence is very easily interpreted into my Young Earth Created in 6 literal days once the FALLABLE dating methods are dropped.

All human methods are fallible, scientific or not, including your method of evaluating your religious text.

Simply because dating methods are not completely infallble does not mean they are automatically wrong and does not mean you can simply throw out their data simply because you don't like it--that is, if you want to be intellectually honest.

Even without dating methods, there are various points here:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/41209.html

that do not necessarily rely on radiometric dating. Some do, and creationists have yet to show it as flawed anyway.

If it so easily fits your model, then there are questions you need to address, otherwise it's hard to take that statement seriously.

BUT, even if it is NEVER answered, the rest of the evidence fits fine.

Then why haven't creationists been able to account for all of the evidence? Why do you get to throw out whatever you don't like simply because it doesn't fit your preconceived conclusion instead of drawing a conclusion from the evidence itself? It's dishonest.

I have given my thoughts on ToE and the ''Strong Delusion'' (2 Thess. Chap 2) sent by God in the end against those who deny Gods truth.

If you wish, I can go over it again.

Yes, yes, yes...you've already pointed out that your God is a liar and apparently gets a kick out of doing it too. Interesting how your god would also continue to lie to further dissuade non-believers from your so-called "truth". Sounds like a great guy.

BEEJ · Sep 16, 2003

When I feel the wind on my face, I know it's there although I haven't studied the particular field of science to explain why it's there or how far it has travelled. To frantically try to prove it started farther away makes me wonder why it frightens you that it might have started more closely?

Freodin · Sep 16, 2003

BEEJ said:
When I feel the wind on my face, I know it's there although I haven't studied the particular field of science to explain why it's there or how far it has travelled. To frantically try to prove it started farther away makes me wonder why it frightens you that it might have started more closely?

If I may interprete this analogy as "wind" meaning "humans" or "life", and "closer" or "farther away" as Young Earth or Old Earth - well, it´s exactly the other way around.

Those who think that the earth is old do this on the basis of positive evidence - things that can be explained better when the earth is old - and negative evidence - things that can not exist when the earth is young. They accept both of these kinds, and adjust their beliefs accordingly. There are enough Christians to show that an accptence of an old earth can be accomodated to Christianity.

On the other hand, those who deny an old earth do this on the sole basis of their beliefs, because they fear that their beliefs - all of their beliefs - would be destroyed if the accepted the opposing view.

Jet Black · Sep 17, 2003

BEEJ said:
When I feel the wind on my face, I know it's there although I haven't studied the particular field of science to explain why it's there or how far it has travelled. To frantically try to prove it started farther away makes me wonder why it frightens you that it might have started more closely?

sorry? are you one of these people that thinks that all the light was created on it's way, and that the 100 or so supernovae discovered by these two guys never happened? When we look at the sky, we don't frantically attempt to prove that the stars are really far away, far from it - the only possible explanation for what we see is that they are really far away. It is the same with a tree, chop it down, count the rings, and the only possible explanation for the rings is that the tree is x many years old, or of course that the tree has been pointlessly been made with hundreds of rings. or perhaps look at a dead tree with mushrooms growing from it... was it created to look like a dead tree? if so, that is just deception. If you say that all these things were created to look aged, then you are calling God a liar. It is pretty incredible that you are trying to call God a liar.

LorentzHA · Sep 17, 2003

BEEJ said:
When I feel the wind on my face, I know it's there although I haven't studied the particular field of science to explain why it's there or how far it has travelled. To frantically try to prove it started farther away makes me wonder why it frightens you that it might have started more closely?

It is amazing how Creationists constantly require proof but then ignore it when it is presented. I have recently thought that I may be a little harsh on the matter, perhaps they cannot understand it and that is the problem. Additionally for all the proof they want they offer none except quoting the text of their own belief system. We (science) present skulls, Isotope dating, etc. etc. Creationists would be upset if we quoted pages from a Biology Text with NOTHING to back it up with and no way to ever verify it, Could you imagine if science had no evidence and said, "Well this is what 12 scientist said, so it has to be true!" You would NOT believe it but want us to believe yo ubecause your story book says so?

Why would it frighten anyone? Let's go with what you are saying. For arguments sake-we will ignore the heaps of evidence that the Earth is in the neighborhood of 4-5 Billion years old. Let us pretend that the Earth is 6,000 years old. I will give you that and say, "The Earth is New"-Now prove a heaven, hell, soul or afterlife to me-You have the floor........(and please do not quote the Bible to me, - use logic and facts please, then I will respectfully consider anything you have to say.)

What Would It Take?

Active Member

Forever England

Praise God in all things!

Gli alberi hanno orecchie, occhi e denti.

Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a

Legend

Legend

Gli alberi hanno orecchie, occhi e denti.

Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a

Gli alberi hanno orecchie, occhi e denti.

Just an old legend...

GondolierAce

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Junior Member

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Jet Black

Guest

Electric Kool-Aid Girl

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency