Death is not Good

[Bonky]

No, his position doesn't suggest that at all.

I beg to differ.

The only way to Validate any Postulate involved in dating is to acquire a Time Machine. Anything less, the "Scientific" Inquiry itself is Invalid and is nothing more than a Massive Dressed Up Begging The Question (Fallacy), Prepping for an Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy). Enter..... "Just So" Stories.

[Enoch2021]

 

This speaks to some of the specific issues.....

 

 

 

Also, the 'Scientific Evidence" of past events is Non-Sequitur, since....

 

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.'

 

The Scientific Method:

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Step 2: Lit Review

Step 3: Hypothesis

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Step 5: Analyze Data

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7: Report Results

I think you are in error when you suggest that the scientific method is the only way to understand the natural world. Scientific inquiry isn't necessarily that rigid. You may want to take a look at this site from Berkely:

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php

Specifically

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b3

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_02

According to your position, forensic analysis of a crime scene should not be used in court, after all we have no "time machine". I doubt you would feel this way if your loved one was murdered.

 

 

 

================================================================================================

 

 

I think you are in error when you suggest that the scientific method is the only way to understand the natural world.

 

Strawman (Fallacy)----I didn't say that.  I said for it to be classified as "Scientific Evidence" it had to follow The Method:  The Scientific Method.

 

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.'

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Step 2: Lit Review

Step 3: Hypothesis

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Step 5: Analyze Data

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7: Report Results

 

 

Scientific inquiry isn't necessarily that rigid.

 

Yes, it kinda is.  See Scientific Method above

 

 

You may want to take a look at this site from Berkely:

 

Why?  I have hundreds of times.... from evolutionists Citing their drivel. 

 

Go ahead and Pull out the "Specifics" that you wish to reference from your (Berkeley) links and we will discuss.

 

Is there anything here you don't understand......Empirical: Observable, Measurable, Repeatable, Falsifiable?

 

According to your position, forensic analysis of a crime scene should not be used in court, after all we have no "time machine". I doubt you would feel this way if your loved one was murdered.

 

First of all "Forensics" by it's very name tells you it's "Historical".  Anything that is not repeatable and is in the past cannot possibly be validated due to myriads of Unknown and Confounding Variables. You don't know what you don't know. Precision/Veracity/Accuracy are compromised.

 

You're also Equivocating (Fallacy) between "Crime Scenes" which are Hours/Days/@ most a few weeks old then trying to Pseudo-Justify by some lateral transfer, Inquiries that are "allegedly" Millions/Billions of years old.  Define Rubber Ruler?

 

Moreover, can you tell me how many falsifications does it take to Invalidate a Scientific Law or Hypothesis?   Answer: "1".  Has there been anyone ever convicted of a crime via "Forensics" that later was found to be Innocent?

 

Can you tell me what Trumps "Forensic" Evidence?   "Eye Witnesses".

 

 

I doubt you would feel this way if your loved one was murdered.

 

You don't have One Clue about how I would "feel".  Would "Forensics" have the ability to bring them back?  Obviously, the death of a Loved One regardless of circumstances would hurt me......temporarily.  If it was a Loved One that was a Christian, it wouldn't take long for a smile to find it's way to my face; because I know for 100% certainty that they're with The LORD and their Tribulations are OVER.

 

As for whoever is responsible, they will have to kneel (as we all will) before the Creator of the Universe and give account.  I'll leave the issue with HIM.

[Bonky]

================================================================================================

 

 

I think you are in error when you suggest that the scientific method is the only way to understand the natural world.

 

Strawman (Fallacy)----I didn't say that.  I said for it to be classified as "Scientific Evidence" it had to follow The Method:  The Scientific Method.

 

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.'

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Step 2: Lit Review

Step 3: Hypothesis

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Step 5: Analyze Data

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7: Report Results

Ok, so that I can verify what you are saying, please cite your source.  

 

Scientific inquiry isn't necessarily that rigid.

 

Yes, it kinda is.  See Scientific Method above

 

Why?  I have hundreds of times.... from evolutionists Citing their drivel. 

 

Go ahead and Pull out the "Specifics" that you wish to reference from your (Berkeley) links and we will discuss.

You can start with the part where they disagree with you that an absolute strict use of the scientific method is the only way to study and evaluate evidence.

 

First of all "Forensics" by it's very name tells you it's "Historical".  Anything that is not repeatable and is in the past cannot possibly be validated due to myriads of Unknown and Confounding Variables. You don't know what you don't know. Precision/Veracity/Accuracy are compromised.

Validated with a measure of confidence, if you're talking about absolute knowledge than you understand science less than what I thought.

  

You're also Equivocating (Fallacy) between "Crime Scenes" which are Hours/Days/@ most a few weeks old then trying to Pseudo-Justify by some lateral transfer, Inquiries that are "allegedly" Millions/Billions of years old.  Define Rubber Ruler?

 

Moreover, can you tell me how many falsifications does it take to Invalidate a Scientific Law or Hypothesis?   Answer: "1".  Has there been anyone ever convicted of a crime via "Forensics" that later was found to be Innocent?

Baloney, there are plenty of times when they find a body that had been buried etc for years. The fact remains, by your assessment, forensics isn't a science at all. All they would have are "just so" stories.

 

  

Can you tell me what Trumps "Forensic" Evidence?   "Eye Witnesses".

Not necessarily. Eye witness accounts can be quite off. I recall watching a show where a woman got held at gunpoint at the store she worked at. They actually caught the guy [they didn't realize it was him] and had him present on a lineup. She picked the wrong guy.

 

 

  

You don't have One Clue about how I would "feel".  Would "Forensics" have the ability to bring them back?  Obviously, the death of a Loved One regardless of circumstances would hurt me......temporarily.  If it was a Loved One that was a Christian, it wouldn't take long for a smile to find it's way to my face; because I know for 100% certainty that they're with The LORD and their Tribulations are OVER.

 

As for whoever is responsible, they will have to kneel (as we all will) before the Creator of the Universe and give account.  I'll leave the issue with HIM.

It would have the ability for you to rest knowing what happened potentially.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

=========================================================================================

 

 

Ok, so that I can verify what you are saying, please cite your source.

 

Source for what.....The Scientific Method? I think it was 7th grade General Science: the first 30 minutes as a matter of fact.

 

 

You can start with the part where they disagree with you that an absolute strict use of the scientific method is the only way to study and evaluate evidence.

 

Bonky, you posted the source.  I'm not searching through their drivel to find "YOUR" Refutation.

 

Again, what don't you Understand......Empirical Evidence: Observable, Measurable, Repeatable, Falsifiable.  ??

 

Do you want me to source the definition for Empirical?

 

if you're talking about absolute knowledge than you understand science less than what I thought.

 

Strawman (Fallacy)---- I never said "absolute" knowledge.  I said "Validation"....it's called Hypothesis Testing.

 

Do you prepare the Flame Thrower just before or immediately following posting a Strawman?....then add a backhanded slight connector.  

 

TIP: Fallacies are Fallacious

 

Is there Absolute TRUTH?

 

 

Not necessarily. Eye witness accounts can be quite off.

 

Are you a Lawyer?  Please list Evidence quality for court proceedings.  And I said "Eye Witness-ES".  In Scripture, it's 2 or 3 to Validate a claim.

People are fallible...that's why we use the Scientific Method.

 

 

Baloney, there are plenty of times when they find a body that had been buried etc for years. The fact remains, by your assessment, forensics isn't a science at all. All they would have are "just so" stories.

 

"Baloney", that's my line   Yes, and what did they say about that body?  The "Just So" classification would depend on what they said.

 

 

It would have the ability for you to rest knowing what happened potentially.

 

Nope, Zero.

[gray wolf]

 

A vast number of conservative theologians accept animal death before Adam’s Fall. No significant doctrines are impacted, they say, if animals have been killing each other for millions of years.

Many pastors and theologians today believe that the earth is millions or billions of years old. But based on my reading and interactions, it is clear that most of them have never really considered the theological implications of allowing animal death, disease, predation, and extinction prior to Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden.

 

 

I read one clever post on here saying What, Adam never stepped on an ant?

[Bonky]

Source for what.....The Scientific Method? I think it was 7th grade General Science: the first 30 minutes as a matter of fact.

Your statement that the only scientific evidence we have for something is what is derived from the scientific method. You seem to have this belief that we can't make any scientific statements about the past. It's flat out false.

 

 

Bonky, you posted the source.  I'm not searching through their drivel to find "YOUR" Refutation.

I gave you the link to the exact paragraph!

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.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

======================================================================================

 

 

Your statement that the only scientific evidence we have for something is what is derived from the scientific method. You seem to have this belief that we can't make any scientific statements about the past. It's flat out false.

 

Why cause you said so?  If it doesn't conform to The Method that makes Science, "Science"....then it's not Science, Period.

 

 

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.

 

 

Baloney.  The Scientific Method is the Foundation, The Rate Limiting Step.  There are many Research Designs and Methods that can add to it....but you can't take anything away. 

 

I can remember back in the day, where I had to take a Full Semester University Course on Evaluating Research.  We spent most of our time at the designs and methods...."Most" had more design flaws than a 1975 VEB Trabant

 

Post "Your" or "They're" Scientific Method and lets get to cases

 

 

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.

 

 Are you serious?  This sounds like a description a 3rd grade teacher would give of Cake Decorating.

 

Go ahead and post that flow chart...I got my Flame Thrower ready.

 

Check This:

[The_Patriot21]

 

 

A vast number of conservative theologians accept animal death before Adam’s Fall. No significant doctrines are impacted, they say, if animals have been killing each other for millions of years.

Many pastors and theologians today believe that the earth is millions or billions of years old. But based on my reading and interactions, it is clear that most of them have never really considered the theological implications of allowing animal death, disease, predation, and extinction prior to Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden.

 

 

I read one clever post on here saying What, Adam never stepped on an ant?

 

 

no. actually.

[Guest]

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalms 119:11

 

~

 

 

A vast number of conservative theologians accept animal death before Adam’s Fall. No significant doctrines are impacted, they say, if animals have been killing each other for millions of years.

 

Many pastors and theologians today believe that the earth is millions or billions of years old. But based on my reading and interactions, it is clear that most of them have never really considered the theological implications of allowing animal death, disease, predation, and extinction prior to Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden.

 

When challenged about this seeming inconsistency, they usually point to the “overwhelming scientific evidence” and say or imply that their perspective is easy to harmonize with the Bible and it doesn’t significantly affect any important doctrines. This attitude is being promoted in theology textbooks widely used in conservative evangelical seminaries, colleges, and churches.

 

An example is Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology (1994). This work is helpful in many ways and immensely influential, having been translated into at least eight major languages. Like many other evangelicals who reject the young-earth view, Grudem believes that the Fall had an impact on the whole creation. And he teaches that when Jesus returns and renews the creation, “there will be no more thorns or thistles, no more floods or droughts, no more deserts or uninhabitable jungles, no more earthquakes or tornadoes, no more poisonous snakes or bees that sting or mushrooms that kill” (p. 836).

 

But this outstanding, highly respected theologian apparently does not see how the concept of millions of years of death before the Fall destroys the Bible’s teaching about the goodness of the original creation, the prospect of goodness in the new heaven and earth, and the goodness of God Himself. Are you prepared to answer Christians who say the age of creation isn’t important? https://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/death-not-good/?utm_source=aigsocial07312014deathnot&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=facebooktwittergooglelinkedin

 

 

Does

 

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22

 

God Lie?

 

For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. Romans 3:3-4

 

Does Man?

 

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Genesis 3:1(a-c)