Well I'm glad to hear the little controversy was cleared up. A biological fact can't prove a belief anymore than pyhsics can prove a sunset is beautiful.
Upvote
0
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.
There is no controversy.
Perhaps you might like to show how biology does provide evidence for omnipotence, etc...?.
What the heck does this even mean??? What is "Darwinism" and how is it different from plain old evolution?
Good think the study of evolution sticks to the scientific method then.Evolution is a phenomemon visible in nature. Darwinism is philosophy. As soon as someone strays from what can be observed, repeated and tested to what they think, they've moved from science to philosophy.
they realize they aren't talking about facts anymore, rather opinion
I'm not sure I see the distinction. The theory of evolution is its own argument against creationism, along with current theories of cosmology, geology, archaeology and a number of other sciences. What special role do "Darwinists" play?
Good think the study of evolution sticks to the scientific method then.
Oh? why's that?Hilariously ironic statement given your assertions.
Creationism is not just a philosophy. Creationism makes scientifically falsifiable claims: that the Earth was created during six days in 4004 BC and was entirely covered with water in 2400 BC, for instance. If you are going to make scientifically falsifiable claims you have to be prepared for the possibility that they might be falsified. Whining after the fact about the philosophy of the scientists who have falsified your claims is a cop-out.Creationism is a belief, classified as a philosophy. Good point cosmology, geology, archaeology and the rest are science. The fact of a rock cannot argue aganst a belief such as creationism. The fact an organism evolves is not an argument against creationism. Now, the inductive reasoning from the fact of evolution can be used to make a case against creationism. Fine. But that isn't the unassailable position the fact of a rock is.
Darwinism is the opposite philosophy of creationism. Darwinists think their reasoning unassailable, any attack in their beliefs is an attack on science they say. True enough empirical science is unassailable. But what they're selling isn't empirical science, its philosophy.
By your reckoning science is able to do, say and prove a lot more than than it actually can. Those extrodinary claims you bring up originate from a worldview, not science.Creationism is not just a philosophy. Creationism makes scientifically falsifiable claims: that the Earth was created during six days in 4004 BC and was entirely covered with water in 2400 BC, for instance. If you are going to make scientifically falsifiable claims you have to be prepared for the possibility that they might be falsified. Whining after the fact about the philosophy of the scientists who have falsified your claims is a cop-out.
Another charge of confusion by someone who doesn't know what a question is?
A theory or statement can be refuted. A worldview something that is believed or not believed. Perhaps it is you who is confused.
By your reckoning science is able to do, say and prove a lot more than than it actually can. Those extrodinary claims you bring up originate from a worldview, not science.
Come now, do you actually think they can experimentially falsify the Earth was covered in water? They'd need a time machine for starters.
No, those claims always have been or will be rejected or accepted on philosophical grounds.
Absolutely. Floods leave unmistakable geological evidence; the size and scope of the flood can be determined by the nature of the evidence. No "time machine" is necessary. No anti-creationist "worldview" is required, either.By your reckoning science is able to do, say and prove a lot more than than it actually can. Those extrodinary claims you bring up originate from a worldview, not science.
Come now, do you actually think they can experimentially falsify the Earth was covered in water? They'd need a time machine for starters.
No, those claims always have been or will be rejected or accepted on philosophical grounds.
By your reckoning science is able to do, say and prove a lot more than than it actually can. Those extrodinary claims you bring up originate from a worldview, not science.
Come now, do you actually think they can experimentially falsify the Earth was covered in water? They'd need a time machine for starters.
No, those claims always have been or will be rejected or accepted on philosophical grounds.
I understand that criminals are routinely convicted/exonerated on the basis of DNA evidence. No "time machine" is used, yet no one 'was there' to observe the crime when it happened, in many cases.
I suppose those claims of guilt/innocence should be rejected on "philosophical grounds", correct.....
Absolutely. Floods leave unmistakable geological evidence; the size and scope of the flood can be determined by the nature of the evidence. No "time machine" is necessary. No anti-creationist "worldview" is required, either.
Say what you will about the theory of evolution, the young Earth and worldwide flood business has been busted for over two hundred years, busted by Christian geologists, many of them clergymen, who accepted the evidence reluctantly but finally had to admit it was overwhelming.
In your, and many scientists, opinions those claims have been busted. Claiming facts not in evidence such as "they've been falsified" is an attempt to delegitimize a dissenting position. We are on equal ground here, expressing opinions with facts to support them. I could say new discoveries like ones from the Mt St Helen eruption "falsify" your claims about an old Earth. That would be overstating my case. I will say there is evidence to support my worldview of a young Earth and global flood.
And you are welcome to it, I'm sure. You have a worldview that you think is endangered by the discoveries of science, I do not. What I believe is not impacted by anything mere science can discover. Mind you, I think theories of a young Earth and a global flood are bad science unsupported by real evidence. But it matters little to my faith, my "worldview" if you like, whether the Earth is six thousand years old or six billion.In your, and many scientists, opinions those claims have been busted. Claiming facts not in evidence such as "they've been falsified" is an attempt to delegitimize a dissenting position. We are on equal ground here, expressing opinions with facts to support them. I could say new discoveries like ones from the Mt St Helen eruption "falsify" your claims about an old Earth. That would be overstating my case. I will say there is evidence to support my worldview of a young Earth and global flood.
No, they wouldn't. You seem to be unaware of the fact that over five miles of water would leave a mark. The question is why would you think that it would not leave a mark?
And you are welcome to it, I'm sure. You have a worldview that you think is endangered by the discoveries of science, I do not. What I believe is not impacted by anything mere science can discover. Mind you, I think theories of a young Earth and a global flood are bad science unsupported by real evidence. But it matters little to my faith, my "worldview" if you like, whether the Earth is six thousand years old or six billion.
I'm sure a global flood would leave clues.
Another educated guess being touted as "fact". Keep overstating your case, it only shows how weak it is.
I am aware of a hypothesis where somebody figured it would take 5 miles of water and assumes marks would be left. Their assumption is Mt Everest is the same then as now. Another assumption is Mt Everest was not the same as it is now. They've found oceans of water 620 miles below the surface, fossils on mountain tops, and huge petrified forests below ground. Those actual facts seem to support the idea things were radically different in the past. The Grand Canyon would qualify as a clue from the flood.
I'm sure a global flood would leave clues.
Another educated guess being touted as "fact". Keep overstating your case, it only shows how weak it is.
I am aware of a hypothesis where somebody figured it would take 5 miles of water and assumes marks would be left. Their assumption is Mt Everest is the same then as now. Another assumption is Mt Everest was not the same as it is now. They've found oceans of water 620 miles below the surface, fossils on mountain tops, and huge petrified forests below ground. Those actual facts seem to support the idea things were radically different in the past. The Grand Canyon would qualify as a clue from the flood.
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?