6 Falsified 'Scientific' Theories / 6 Scientific Facts.

[blessedpeter]

I'm confused why stating that something has some avian and some reptilian traits would disprove that it's a transitional form between reptiles and birds.

 

 

Probably because fully formed functioning birds existed in China at east ten million years before the earliest archaeopteryx. That is according to radiometric dating, if you believe that kind of stuff.

[blessedpeter]

Leaving the subject of evolution aside, because that horse corpse is being flogged on multiple other threads, what do all the other believers here think about the other 5 falsified theories vs scientific facts listed?  Are there any unwavering, scientifically knowledgeable 7 day creationists who would like to defend gravity or relativity?

We know that all bodies with mass attract each other. What the force is that attracts them we knoweth not. Einstein postulated that it was the curvature of space caused by the mass of the body that gave the illusion of a force of attraction. Like Newton's theory of gravity, Einstein's theory of gravity (Relativity) has given us many useful insights into the nature of the universe, and like Newton's theory, Einstein's theory is not quite exactly right. The more we learn, the more we see that there are parts of his theory that could use some major overhauls, but all in all his theory is more than adequate for our present state of understanding. If you really want to see the theory of relativity put to good use I highly recommend a good in-depth look at Dr. Russell Humphries' "Starlight and Time." Like the Big Bang Theory, Humphries` theory has undergone some revisions thanks to those among his peers who looked at it and offered their criticism. It does suffer from some major obstacles, but then Humphries is just too much the scientist to go inventing things like ``dark matter`` and ``dark energy`` to save his theory. That the Big Bang Theory requires the invention of unseen and undetectable things in order to make it work tells me that it is on life support. But that is science. Good science. As more knowledge (scientia) is accumulated, the theories which opened the path to getting that knowledge begin to prove inadequate to accommodate the new knowledge and a different theory is born. For example: Newton`s theory still works just fine here on earth, and Einstein's theory still works just fine in our known universe, but there are getting too many equations that are ending in infinity, and physicists are starting to look for something else. They will not abandon Einstein`s math any more than they abandoned Newton`s math. That would be foolhardy. But a more adequate theory is now being considered which can accommodate the new understandings physicists are gaining of the universe. The one guy I would say who is the leading the rest is Dr. Leonard Susskind. He is light years ahead of Hawking, and even though he is an atheist, he does not care where his math leads him, even to God. Another guy who is interesting to look into is Dr. Amit Guswami. He is the only one who is really dealing with what physicists have known for a few decades now: without consciousness there is no universe, and consciousness must of necessity preceded the creation of the universe. So, while the biologists headed by Dr. Richard Dawkins literally gnash their teeth at Christian metaphysics (cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas), physicists are on the verge of proving Christian metaphysics to be true. It is a wonderful time in which we live.

[RobbyPants]

 

They pretty much are, other than the differing order listed for when Adam, Eve, and the plants and animals were created.

 

There is no contradiction. Some plants and some animals were created in the Garden of Eden (some even from different material than in the general Creation from Genesis 1). But again, that regards the Garden of Eden only.

 

Some Creationists (Hovind, for example) claim that God did that even in front of man (Adam), so that he could see who the Creator is. In support of that comes the fact that the serpent went to tempt Eve, not Adam. Other than that, I couldn’t find any arguments for this thesis. Sounds good, but I don’t know if it’s really true.

 

That is a very interesting way to look at it. 

  

 

 

 

The only things that say the Bible needs to be interpreted literally are:

1. The Bible (which is circular reasoning)

That’s really enough – no need for other reasons at all. If one is going to believe the Bible, then (s)he should obviously believe the Bible on how the Bible (and not other people) says it should be believed.

 

And no, it’s no circular reasoning at all.

 

Okay, if that is your justification, the it is Begging the Question, instead, which is a form of circular reasoning. It involves asserting the conclusion in the premise, and then using the premise to "prove" the conclusion.

When I said circular reasoning, I figured the reasoning was something in line with:

1) God exists.

2) We know God exists because the Bible says so.

3) We know the Bible is true because it's the word of God.

Which, of course, forms a circle (how can we assert #3 without assuming #1?).

 

For example, you use DNA to understand DNA, don’t you?

I'm not even sure what this means.

 

 

 

 

If you want a "good" answer, you'd have to directly ask people who hold that world view.

 

No, I wouldn’t. I already know why. Even better than them…

 

That is very dismissive. You haven't even said what there people are even arguing. You simply assumed their ideas are wrong, and that you understand them better than they do.

 

 

 

 

So, we'll chalk this one up as agree to disagree, and move on then, huh?

 

Your problem isn’t that we two disagree. You should have expected that form the start, since I’m a Creationist and you an evolutionist. Your problem is that evolutionists themselves disagree between themselves (and with you).

 

Technically, many creationists believe different things. My wife would qualify as a creationist, yet she would disagree with a lot of things you say. Does this lack of consensus among creationists disprove creationism? If not, then how does that same argument disprove evolution?

Or are you going to resort to a No True Scotsman and call my wife not a "true" creationist?

 

How many quotes from hardcore evolutionists do you want me to give you? A few examples:

I honestly don't care how many you have. I don't dogmatically accept evolution. I honestly couldn't care less if someone diffinitively proved it wrong tomorrow. I wouldn't mind switching my world view to something else if a better model were presented in its place, and if it were disproven without another model put in it's place, I would be happy answering "I don't know" when people ask where we came from. Assuming that the only two possible answers are creationism or evolution is simply setting up a false dichotomy. If you don't accept that, then prove to me difinitively that the world was not created by fleems. 

 

 

 

You didn't answer either question.

 

I didn’t. And I’m still not. Simply because it was not my argument.

 

Actually, yes, it was your argument, and I'm taking your refusal to answer those two questions as you admitting that if you do answer them, your line of reasoning doesn't work. Let me walk you through it. If you disagree, tell me where and why you disagree:

1) What type of system is the earth? Isolated/Closed/Open?

You assert that the universe is isolated, yet there are other types of systems within the universe. The earth is an open system. It gets energy from the sun, and to a lesser extent, other sources from space.

2) Is it possible to discuss thermodynamics in a sub-system (as it pertains specifically to that sub-system) that is Open or Closed, even if it is inside a larger, isolated sub-system? If not, why not?

You assert that because the universe is isolated, we must look at it, and only it when talking about evolution (which we have only observed on earth) and the second law of thermodynamics. If closed and open systems exist, and they exist within the universe (an isolated system), there are one of two possibilities:

i. Open and closed systems can be studied spearately from any larger systems in which they are enclosed, because their open and closed nature gives them different properties. If this is the case, then we do care that the earth is an open system, and, this would invalidate the argument of using the second law of thermodynamics to disprove evolution

ii. If we cannot study a smaller system that is inside a larger system, and all systems are inside the universe (an isolated system), then why do we even have separate designations for closed and open systems?

 

That is it. There is no magical third option that allows you to declare that because the universe is an isolated system, that we must consider that (and only that!) when discussing evolution.

So please, answer the questions, or tell me where the above reasoning is wrong.

[Guest]

God Said It

 

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. Psalms 33:6

 

Ergo, I Am

 

For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. Psalms 139:13-14

 

~

 

So please, answer the questions, or tell me where the above reasoning is wrong.

 

 

Either God Feeds It

 

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossians 1:17

 

Or The Universe Is A Closed System

 

~

 

And Small

 

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1

 

Minded

 

Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:7-9

 

Creatures

 

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

 

Are The Flies

 

Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour. Ecclesiastes 10:1

 

In Reason And In Healing

 

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18

 

~

 

Believe

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

 

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

 

Love, Joe