Science and the Bible...

[Goldenshark123]

Reply to Teditis

There's plenty of evidence, go to the museum and look at it

[Goldenshark123]

Reply to Kan

One of the main evidences against god is that you cannot test it. If something is untestable then it is assumed wrong until evidence to support it comes forward. Please give me some.

[Guest Teditis]

9 minutes ago, Goldenshark123 said:

Reply to Kan

One of the main evidences against god is that you cannot test it. If something is untestable then it is assumed wrong until evidence to support it comes forward. Please give me some.

The same thing can be said about evolution... you can't test.

Same goes for ToE... you can't test it.

[Goldenshark123]

You can test evolution. Fossils, sedimentary rock just to name a few. Did you also just admit that there is no evidence for god

[Guest Teditis]

2 minutes ago, Goldenshark123 said:

You can test evolution. Fossils, sedimentary rock just to name a few. Did you also just admit that there is no evidence for god

Not so!

That method is circular reasoning... the way we know the age of the fossils is by what rock layer we find them in... and we can't date rocks, there's no testing for it.

Er, that's what the pseudo scientists say.

[ARGOSY]

10 minutes ago, Goldenshark123 said:

You can test evolution. Fossils, sedimentary rock just to name a few. Did you also just admit that there is no evidence for god

Lol it always amuses me the assumption of evolution from a bacteria/fish/amphibian/terrestrial ordering.   Surely this just means that bacteria died first, and that the ocean became a landmass?   Icecaps forming would create the same lowering of sea levels and increasing landmasses, and the same ordering of fossils over just a few years. Nothing in the fossil record shows the evolving of prokaryotes of only 1000 genes to organisms of 10000 to 22000 genes. Nothing. Only an honest man would admit that.

As i have said before , science has not even a valid hypothesis for the Cambrian explosion, the sudden appearance of most animal phyla with ZERO transitional fossils preceding them. Creationism says this points to creation, the only reason prokaryotes and bacteria fossils are found lower than the Cambrian explosion is of course they have short life-spans and so billions of them die before the first trilobite dies. So the fossil record in fact points to creationism, not evolution. The lack of explanation for the non-existent transitional fossils before the Cambrian explosion is damning to evolution, and points directly to creation.

[FresnoJoe]

On 3/4/2016 at 11:45 AM, siegi91 said:

if I had infinite power, I would not need to reuse design to model the very reason I created the Universe for. That is what engineers with limited power do.  I would make it so much different that no doubts can arise about a possible common origin of my jewel with, well, gorillas.

in the interest of shutting the mouth of those future pesky "evolutionists" and atheists.  

Sounds

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Psalms 19:1-3

Like A Prophecy

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;  Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Romans 1:18-22

To Me

For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Romans 14:11-12

~

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

Love, Your Brother Joe

[Davidjayjordan]

On 1/11/2016 at 1:03 PM, completedbeliever1 said:

Science, creation, and truth.  We need to reason together, and come to a sound conclusion.  

I would like to have a discussion about why creation is the truth, while evolution is a lie that must be stopped. 

As I said in another post, it is a poison and our youth is its victim.

Please, let us have a rational debate, and come to a truthful resolution...

While I have studied evo vs creation for nearly 10 years, I am by no means an expert in all fields.  With that being said, I do know a thing or two about what is going on.  

I am neither right wing, nor left wing, and I most certainly am not politically correct.  

I am not racist, and I have no agenda.  (Creationists like myself are now called racist because we do not agree with evolutionists, and other...(just type into your browser, 'are creationists racist'?))  I simply see with my eyes, smell with my nose, hear with my ears, taste with my mouth, and feel with my hands.  

Anything said to me beyond this is your opinion, and one that should be kept to yourself. 

This is for anyone who wants to know more about evo vs creation.  

I am an expert on Creationism from many different angles and have the wirtings to prove it, as creationism stems from seeing and understanding the design that can be seen in Nature, in the Stars, in the Universe, in Biology, in math, in PHYSICS, in Earths geometry etc etc...

I am not sure, I will be allowed to post on these things.

 

That is to be determined.

 

ATB

 

David

[SavedOnebyGrace]

Can a rock grow legs and walk around?  Yet the Bible says in Luke 19:37-40;

As he was drawing near—already on the way down the Mount of Olives—the whole multitude of his disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen, saying, “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” And some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples.” He answered, “I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out.”  [ESV]

[Enoch2021]

On 3/5/2016 at 2:02 PM, Goldenshark123 said:

You can test evolution. Fossils, sedimentary rock just to name a few. 

1. "evolution", what's that?  Please post the "Scientific Theory of evolution...?

 

2.  You can TEST fossils and rocks?   What's the Independent Variable: Eyelids, Angle of the Shovel, Imagination ?

Henry Gee PhD (Paleontology, Evolutionary Biology) Senior Editor Nature...

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the SAME VALIDITY as a BEDTIME STORY—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but NOT SCIENTIFIC.” {emphasis mine}
Henry Gee PhD; In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 1999, pp. 116-117

It "appears" the First Step in the Scientific Method is somewhat confusing to most. It's not just "Make an Observation" or "Conjure a Phenomenon"; it's "OBSERVE A PHENOMENON". It's an "ACTION" that you OBSERVE, that must be based in " Reality " so as to afford the ability to TEST it. It's also NOT just "OBSERVE" as in Observe "Nouns" (rock, fossil, et al)...you have to OBSERVE a "Phenomenon", an Action/Verb Tense.  And it has to be repeatable, it can't be a "One-Off" event...if so, How can you TEST it?

 

"No phenomenon is a phenomenon unless it is an observed phenomenon."

Niels Bohr (Nobel Prize, Physics), as quoted in; Science and Ultimate Reality; Quantum Theory, Cosmology and Complexity: Cambridge University Press, p. 209

 

If you try and circumvent The Scientific Method and Hypothesize Observations of Nouns/Make an Observation, this is what you're reduced to (an example)...

 

I Observe a Tree "Noun". What's the Hypothesis...? ...

 

How did this Tree Form? (Invalid, not Observed)
What circumstances led to this Tree growing in my backyard? (Invalid, not Observed)
The Tree formed by evolution. (Invalid, not Observed). And, you have a Begging The Question Fallacy in the Hypothesis.

* btw, these are not Valid Scientific Hypotheses. 

 

OK what's the TEST? Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis, then please elucidate...

The Independent Variable and what are you measuring (Dependent Variable) ?

 

"You make a set of observations, then hypothesize an explanation which accounts for all of the observations."-- cod.edu 
 http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/scimeth.htm 

 

OK lets Hypothesize an Explanation which accounts for ALL the Observations.... So with our Tree:

 

Since we just "Observe the Tree", how do we account for all the Observations? THIS IS YOUR ONLY RECOURSE (Each and every Time you just "Make an Observation" of Nouns): Your Hypothesis from the Train-wreck Observation...

 

[In the daytime] Open your Eyelids then billions of bits of data hit the Retina which the Photo-Receptors have to ENCODE then send to the Visual Cortex for DECODING (Symbolic Logic)--- which btw, the Laws of Physics and Biochemistry have no Symbolic Logic Functions.

 

Viola, A Tree! The Independent Variable here... is YOUR EYELIDS !!  

 

It's OBSERVE a PHENOMENON, not just "Make an Observation"--- of Nouns!

 

regards