Hebrew Scholar Affirms YEC and Other parts of Genesis

[gray wolf]

Blessings Looking...

Finally....we agree!!!! But we do not have to,so don't get me wrong....I can understand people having different opinions & understandings & they are to be given respect even if we do not agree........I do like what you said about science as a tool for man.....it is just that.

Not everything is a "Salvational" issue & its okay to think differently ,God did not create little robots all programmed to think & act alike......thats why it is even more a time to celebrate with one another when each one comes into the joy of their Salvation!!!!!

As Joe says,"Without Jesus-you're done!" who cares if one thinks in an old or young earth?.......I believe every God inspired Word of the Bible is true,literally....some think it is allegorical or metaphorical....John 3:16 tells us what is really important!

With love,in Christ-Kwik

[Guest shiloh357]

Each of those branches you listed are a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions.  I am really not sure what you are getting at.  If you find some massive difference then spell it out and quit playing these silly games.

Actually only operational science is "testable."    Forensic science cannot replicate how a person died.   Operational science uses the scientific method to test a hypothesis to falsify it.  That is not possible in say, forensic science.   In Forensic science, you have to look at the evidence and piece together what you think happened based on the evidence available.   A criminal forensic expert can only guess at how a person died.  They cannot test to discover the exact way a person died.

 

Origins science is like forensic science.  You cannot replicate the origin of the universe so you have to look at the evidence you have.   Evolution for this reason, can never be emplrically proven.

[Boash]

Yes don't take it literally until it comes to the parts that suit you.

[Enoch2021]

Each of those branches you listed are a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions.  I am really not sure what you are getting at.  If you find some massive difference then spell it out and quit playing these silly games.

 

Silly Games, eh?

 

Your technique is mostly equivocation after equivocation and I've called you on it a number of times.  An equivocation is a fallacy, another words....A FALSEHOOD.

 

"I am really not sure what you are getting at"

 

The difference between them is OBSERVATION or experience, Empirical Science is not dealing with the past. TRUTH/FACTS are derived from OBSERVATION and conducting REPEATABLE TESTABLE experiments. So when you postulate an idea you can then show support with Empirical EVIDENCE. 

 

You can't do repeatable experiments with "science" disciplines such as (Paleontology, Anthropology, Cosmology et al) because they're dealing with past events and you can't do Repeatable Experiments so it's not really science....

 

“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.” (Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848–1850, 2007.)

 

When dealing with Forensic and Historical Sciences the only technique that can be used to arrive @ a conclusion is Mathematical Probability...it's not as reliable and doesn't carry the same veracity as OBSERVATION and Empirical/Operational Science via direct experimentation.

 

What was the point? ....

I'm providing a direct refutation of your statement concerning "People bashing science when they use the internet" fiasco.  So the question still stands....what does the study of fossils have to do with the internet or my cell phone use? 

 

Internet and cell phones are a result of Technology derived from EMPIRICAL/Operational Science.  The study of Fossils fall into Paleontology, a Classic Historic Science.

 

Is that clear now?

[Enoch2021]

 

"I do not know what your body language actually is"

 

I'm sitting @ my laptop in sweats typing listening to my kids run around the house playing....I guess you could characterize my body language as neutral.

 

"but your post comes across as having a lot of angst"

 

Well you must have mis-perceived it then.  You made generalized statements on your thoughts regarding science and proof which then led to specific questions to distill what EXACTLY you meant.  By my count, I asked roughly 7 questions for clarification.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 

"Calm down"

 

What has led you to believe that I'm not calm?

 

"What is your point?"

 

Well my initial point was to show that equivocating Science and Technology is a fallacy and that the Goal of Empirical/Operational Science is to establish TRUTH systematically then provide evidence to support that TRUTH.

 

 

By body language, I meant tone of voice and facial expression.

 

The kinds of questions you asked came across more like attack questions than inquiry questions.

 

Yes, perhaps I did mis-perceived, which is why I expressed how I felt about what you said rather than responding in a way that aligned with my misconception.

 

 

OK, technology requires science (usually some form of physics), and quite often the two are tied together - i.e. in news feeds you will find the category "science and technology". But technically, yes, they are different things (else the category would be scitech or something weird like that).

 

Truth - well, "truth" isn't exactly in science vocabulary,  unless people are intermixing philosophy or theology into their science - which actually happens quite a lot. Most of science should be presented as: "The evidence indicates...," not "This is how it is...."

 

A great example of that would be nutrition science. First they say, "This is good for you," then they say, "This is bad for you," then they say, "This is good for you in moderation." (You know what I mean.) What they should say is, "Our latest studies indicate ....."

 

Now granted, we have physics principles that are more well-grounded than the revolving door of nutrition, but hopefully you get the idea.

 

As far as the history of the universe goes, though, you have to know the material between what is fact (the observed evidence) and what is interpretation of the fact. And that can get complicated.

 

 

OK, no problem.

 

"A great example of that would be nutrition science."

 

That is too funny and more IRONIC than you know.  Almost fell off the chair....LOL

 

And as I implied there are many types of "science" and my point was Empirical/Operational Science has tenets that others do not.  I didn't say they find TRUTH or FACTS each and every time but that is their goal and this type of science lends itself to this scenario.

 

Peace Brother

[nebula]

OK, Enoch - that makes sense (your answer to LFA)).

 

Ha - glad I made you laugh.

 

 

 

 

 

(P.S. I'm a sister, see?)

 

<--------

[Enoch2021]

OK, Enoch - that makes sense (your answer to LFA)).

 

Ha - glad I made you laugh.

 

 

 

 

 

(P.S. I'm a sister, see?)

 

<--------

Too funny,

 

After I hit add reply...i said, wait a minute LOL

 

Sorry.....

 

Peace Sister

[LookingForAnswers]

 

Each of those branches you listed are a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions.  I am really not sure what you are getting at.  If you find some massive difference then spell it out and quit playing these silly games.

Actually only operational science is "testable."    Forensic science cannot replicate how a person died.   Operational science uses the scientific method to test a hypothesis to falsify it.  That is not possible in say, forensic science.   In Forensic science, you have to look at the evidence and piece together what you think happened based on the evidence available.   A criminal forensic expert can only guess at how a person died.  They cannot test to discover the exact way a person died.

 

Origins science is like forensic science.  You cannot replicate the origin of the universe so you have to look at the evidence you have.   Evolution for this reason, can never be emplrically proven.

 

 

In Forensic science you can test to falsify, which is what all science does.  They can test to discover how a person didnt die, which narrows down how they did die. 

[LookingForAnswers]

 

Each of those branches you listed are a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions.  I am really not sure what you are getting at.  If you find some massive difference then spell it out and quit playing these silly games.

 

Silly Games, eh?

 

Your technique is mostly equivocation after equivocation and I've called you on it a number of times.  An equivocation is a fallacy, another words....A FALSEHOOD.

 

"I am really not sure what you are getting at"

 

The difference between them is OBSERVATION or experience, Empirical Science is not dealing with the past. TRUTH/FACTS are derived from OBSERVATION and conducting REPEATABLE TESTABLE experiments. So when you postulate an idea you can then show support with Empirical EVIDENCE. 

 

You can't do repeatable experiments with "science" disciplines such as (Paleontology, Anthropology, Cosmology et al) because they're dealing with past events and you can't do Repeatable Experiments so it's not really science....

 

“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.” (Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848–1850, 2007.)

 

When dealing with Forensic and Historical Sciences the only technique that can be used to arrive @ a conclusion is Mathematical Probability...it's not as reliable and doesn't carry the same veracity as OBSERVATION and Empirical/Operational Science via direct experimentation.

 

What was the point? ....

I'm providing a direct refutation of your statement concerning "People bashing science when they use the internet" fiasco.  So the question still stands....what does the study of fossils have to do with the internet or my cell phone use? 

 

Internet and cell phones are a result of Technology derived from EMPIRICAL/Operational Science.  The study of Fossils fall into Paleontology, a Classic Historic Science.

 

Is that clear now?

 

 

I would suggest you read a paper called The observational Approach to Cosmology by Edwin Hubble, he would disagree with your view, as do I.  It seems that people want to split science down the middle so they can have their cake and eat it too.  When science does something they agree with (i.e. medicine, the internet) then that is the "good" science and when they dont agree with it, then that is the "bad" science.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Each of those branches you listed are a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions.  I am really not sure what you are getting at.  If you find some massive difference then spell it out and quit playing these silly games.

Actually only operational science is "testable."    Forensic science cannot replicate how a person died.   Operational science uses the scientific method to test a hypothesis to falsify it.  That is not possible in say, forensic science.   In Forensic science, you have to look at the evidence and piece together what you think happened based on the evidence available.   A criminal forensic expert can only guess at how a person died.  They cannot test to discover the exact way a person died.

 

Origins science is like forensic science.  You cannot replicate the origin of the universe so you have to look at the evidence you have.   Evolution for this reason, can never be emplrically proven.

 

 

In Forensic science you can test to falsify, which is what all science does.  They can test to discover how a person didnt die, which narrows down how they did die. 

 

In operational science, you observe a phenomenon, you create a hypothesis, you design an experiment to test the hypothesis, you make a prediction and you run the test several times and you analyze the data and you either accept, deny or modify the hypothesis and if necessary retest.  

 

Forensic science is nothing like that.   You cannot replicate the crime sciene or the accident scene whatever in a labratory setting.   So you have to basically go off of things lke toxicology report, time of death, the amount of blood the location and position of the body at the time of death,  observable physical injuiries and other conditions pertaining to the body.   You have to look around the room, question people who knew the victim and so on and so forth.   You look for evidence that might inform you of what happened.

 

You are talking about two completely different fields of science.