nebula Posted January 29, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.92 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Enoch, do all mysteries have to make sense to someone in order for them to lean towards a certain direction? If they do for you, congratulation. But I am not there. The OP is about the age of the universe. While the age of the earth ties into that, the great flood does not. I'd rather not bring the other debate into this thread. So consider this me coping out of your dodge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 29, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.89 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 29, 2014 "Enoch, have you eve considered how ironic it is that you insist how unscientific it is for how scientists determine information that cannot be replicated in a lab" Are you suggesting I work for Wikipedia? No. Your question is akin to me asking: Are you relying on Wikipedia as the ultimate authority on information? "yet you would not chide a YEC for how unscientific it is to make evidence fit into a predetermined belief?" How so? And I enlarged that term because it's important for our discussion. Please show where I let anyone "get by" with passing off "Scientific Evidence" erroneously...and I will take my medicine, humbly and contrite. 'Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence 'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence See the difference? LEt me put it this way - What experiments have Creationists performed to validate their claims for a young earth? "Are you relying on Wikipedia as the ultimate authority on information?" Is there another definition or are definitions just arbitrary? Would you like me to have it notarized? Please post YOUR definition of "Scientific Evidence"...CITE Source. "LEt me put it this way - What experiments have Creationists performed to validate their claims for a young earth?" They don't have any "Scientific Evidence" sister, do you know why? ......Because you can't do Experiments ON THE PAST....it doesn't conform to the "Scientific Method" If you want some evidences, I posted some over on "Why I believe Christ and Evolution" thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 29, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.89 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Enoch, do all mysteries have to make sense to someone in order for them to lean towards a certain direction? If they do for you, congratulation. But I am not there. The OP is about the age of the universe. While the age of the earth ties into that, the great flood does not. I'd rather not bring the other debate into this thread. So consider this me coping out of your dodge. I figured. My dodge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchool2 Posted January 29, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 701 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 7,511 Content Per Day: 1.34 Reputation: 1,759 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/16/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/18/1955 Share Posted January 29, 2014 ... it's vegetables and meat.Romans 14 (New International Version)The Weak and the StrongSorry, Shiloh, I should have known better, but this only just came to me.That is utter nonsense ...Now whose "mocking" scripture?You're insistence that everyone eat "vegetables" -- that is, to take all biblical passages literally -- only proves Romans 14 applies to more than just eating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchool2 Posted January 29, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 701 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 7,511 Content Per Day: 1.34 Reputation: 1,759 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/16/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/18/1955 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I think John deliberately avoided any parables of Jesus in his gospel so as to avoid any possible confusion by some readers as to what is and isn't a literal, miraculous and historical event. Your words are very sad to read ...Apparently you didn't read this:"By definition, miracles are 'miraculous' as they are extraordinary events revealing divine intervention in human affairs. Although John's Gospel contains no parables, there are 7 miracles, 5 of which are original to John."Very sad indeed. OK, then I am completely not understanding what your point is?Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 29, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.92 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted January 29, 2014 "Are you relying on Wikipedia as the ultimate authority on information?" Is there another definition or are definitions just arbitrary? Would you like me to have it notarized? Please post YOUR definition of "Scientific Evidence"...CITE Source.I wasn't asking the question so much as using it as a demo for how your question (which I was responding to) came across to me.:Are you suggesting I work for Wikipedia?" Come on! "LEt me put it this way -What experiments have Creationists performed to validate their claims for a young earth?" They don't have any "Scientific Evidence" sister, do you know why? ......Because you can't do Experiments ON THE PAST....it doesn't conform to the "Scientific Method" If you want some evidences, I posted some over on "Why I believe Christ and Evolution" thread.With that line of reasoning, anyone can believe any weird idea they wanted to. Can you imagine if theology was handled with that attitude?Continued information in next post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 29, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.92 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Taken from Misconceptions about science MISCONCEPTION: Experiments are a necessary part of the scientific process. Without an experiment, a study is not rigorous or scientific. CORRECTION: Perhaps because the Scientific Method and popular portrayals of science emphasize experiments, many people think that science can't be done without an experiment. In fact, there are many ways to test almost any scientific idea; experimentation is only one approach. Some ideas are best tested by setting up a controlled experiment in a lab, some by making detailed observations of the natural world, and some with a combination of strategies. To study detailed examples of how scientific ideas can be tested fairly, with and without experiments, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide. ~~ MISCONCEPTION: There is a single Scientific Method that all scientists follow. CORRECTION: "The Scientific Method" is often taught in science courses as a simple way to understand the basics of scientific testing. In fact, the Scientific Method represents how scientists usually write up the results of their studies (and how a few investigations are actually done), but it is a grossly oversimplified representation of how scientists generally build knowledge. The process of science is exciting, complex, and unpredictable. It involves many different people, engaged in many different activities, in many different orders. To review a more accurate representation of the process of science, explore our flowchart. (The two links at the ends of the paragraphs give more detail, but they are too long to post here.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 29, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.92 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Enoch, do all mysteries have to make sense to someone in order for them to lean towards a certain direction? If they do for you, congratulation. But I am not there. The OP is about the age of the universe. While the age of the earth ties into that, the great flood does not. I'd rather not bring the other debate into this thread. So consider this me coping out of your dodge. I figured. My dodge? Yes, it is a dodge. There is absolutely no correlation between what we were discussing and your demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omega_Woman Posted January 29, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 4 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/29/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) Scriptures talks of a literally 24 hours day. To create the whole Universe we see today took 6 literal days. There is nothing in the narrative that points towards another meaning. If it did, what is it meant with God resting the seventh day? Does the Sabbath take millions of years, too? Edited January 29, 2014 by Omega_Woman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 29, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.89 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 29, 2014 "Are you relying on Wikipedia as the ultimate authority on information?" Is there another definition or are definitions just arbitrary? Would you like me to have it notarized? Please post YOUR definition of "Scientific Evidence"...CITE Source. I wasn't asking the question so much as using it as a demo for how your question (which I was responding to) came across to me. :Are you suggesting I work for Wikipedia?" Come on! "LEt me put it this way -What experiments have Creationists performed to validate their claims for a young earth?" They don't have any "Scientific Evidence" sister, do you know why? ......Because you can't do Experiments ON THE PAST....it doesn't conform to the "Scientific Method" If you want some evidences, I posted some over on "Why I believe Christ and Evolution" thread. With that line of reasoning, anyone can believe any weird idea they wanted to. Can you imagine if theology was handled with that attitude? Continued information in next post. "With that line of reasoning, anyone can believe any weird idea they wanted to. Can you imagine if theology was handled with that attitude?" Absolutely unbelievable.... 'Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence 'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence See the difference. You see Scientific Evidence has a Qualifier....it's SCIENTIFIC. You know, that makes it Scientific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts