SCIENCE IN THE BIBLE

[Enoch2021]

11 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

I will go with National Geographic's info.

Why??

 

Quote

I don't pretend to be a scientist

So why do you PARROT what you think is "Science"?

 

Quote

so I feel no obligation to explain Paleontologists' methods or hypotheses to you.

So you can't SUPPORT your (and National Geographic's ) Claim; Ergo...your claim is BASELESS and MUST be DISMISSED.

 

Quote

You must have learned these things in college, Enoch.

Actually, I learned The Scientific Method in 5th Grade....that's how I know "paleontology" and its incoherent sisters: astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, geology, anthropology, archaeology, evolutionary biology (lol), theoretical physics... are Demonstrable FAIRYTALE Maquaraders.
Crocheting is more Scientific than these Clowns..."COMBINED !!!"

 

regards

 

[MorningGlory]

2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

) Claim; Ergo...your claim is BASELESS and MUST be DISMISSED.

YOU can't dismiss anything I, or anyone else, posts here.  You're just another member.

Quote

Actually, I learned The Scientific Method in 5th Grade....that's how I know "paleontology" and its incoherent sisters: astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, geology, anthropology, archaeology, evolutionary biology (lol), theoretical physics... are Demonstrable FAIRYTALE Maquaraders.

So you're dismissing all of these sciences because you know better?  Really?

Quote

Crocheting is more Scientific than these Clowns..."COMBINED !!!"

Is that how you deal with the stress of having to deal with so many sciences being fairy tales? 

 

 

[simplejeff]

2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Actually, I learned The Scientific Method in 5th Grade....that's how I know "paleontology" and its incoherent sisters: astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, geology, anthropology, archaeology, evolutionary biology (lol), theoretical physics... are Demonstrable FAIRYTALE Maquaraders.
Crocheting is more Scientific than these Clowns..."COMBINED !!!"

THe scientific method i sjust like man's politics opposed to God always....  As God's Word always shows,  we are not supposed to study man's ways , nor other nation's politics or such - it leads astray from truth -

so yes, they can be shown by God's Word to be fairy tails.    And the results of them also show leaving away from God, and teaching others to leave away from Jesus, instead of towards Him.

[Enoch2021]

1 minute ago, simplejeff said:

THe scientific method i sjust like man's politics opposed to God always

1.  False Equivalence Fallacy.

2. It's Not.

 

Quote

As God's Word always shows, we are not supposed to study man's ways

1.  Post the Scripture?

2.  Where did I say TO study "Man's Ways"...?

ps.  What does "Always" mean in this context??  Is there a chance if I take a second or third look at Scripture at a later date, that Scripture will somehow change? 

 

Quote

nor other nation's politics or such - it leads astray from truth -

Why are you discussing Politics??

 

Quote

so yes, they can be shown by God's Word to be fairy tails.

What's "they"...?

 

Quote

And the results of them also show leaving away from God, and teaching others to leave away from Jesus, instead of towards Him.

What's "Them"...?

 

regards

[one.opinion]

On 12/28/2017 at 6:13 PM, Tristen said:

Try this one.

http://shrimp.anu.edu.au/people/jjb/JJB publications/1000 Brocks 1999 Science.pdf

Got it, thank you! I can only imagine the difficulty of trying to conclusively show the date when eukaryotes hypothetically first appeared. Although single-celled microfossils do exist, they are predominantly represented by prokaryotic cyanobacteria that form chains and have a particularly thick cell wall, and common eukaryotes (foraminiferans and diatoms) which have silica "shells". The hypothetical first eukaryotic cells cannot be observed directly, but only indirectly from their organic chemical remains. The article mentions the possibility of an extinct branch of prokaryotes that could have produced similar chemicals, but the authors favor the possibility that the unique chemicals could only have been produced by eukaryotic cells.

This indirect method makes the dating of the earliest eukaryotes quite tricky. I don't get the feeling that the scientists were puzzled by "out of place" chemicals in the rocks they were analyzing as much as they simply hadn't seen eukaryotic traces that early before. True, the shift in about 1 billion years in the age of eukaryotes is a huge difference, but I don't think it makes a strong case for the inaccuracy of age determination as much as it simply reports new findings that had not yet been discovered.

[Tristen]

15 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Got it, thank you! I can only imagine the difficulty of trying to conclusively show the date when eukaryotes hypothetically first appeared. Although single-celled microfossils do exist, they are predominantly represented by prokaryotic cyanobacteria that form chains and have a particularly thick cell wall, and common eukaryotes (foraminiferans and diatoms) which have silica "shells". The hypothetical first eukaryotic cells cannot be observed directly, but only indirectly from their organic chemical remains. The article mentions the possibility of an extinct branch of prokaryotes that could have produced similar chemicals, but the authors favor the possibility that the unique chemicals could only have been produced by eukaryotic cells.

This indirect method makes the dating of the earliest eukaryotes quite tricky. I don't get the feeling that the scientists were puzzled by "out of place" chemicals in the rocks they were analyzing as much as they simply hadn't seen eukaryotic traces that early before. True, the shift in about 1 billion years in the age of eukaryotes is a huge difference, but I don't think it makes a strong case for the inaccuracy of age determination as much as it simply reports new findings that had not yet been discovered.

“the shift in about 1 billion years in the age of eukaryotes is a huge difference, but I don't think it makes a strong case for the inaccuracy of age determination as much as it simply reports new findings that had not yet been discovered.”

I haven't been arguing against the ability to explain away such discrepancies. On the contrary, it is the ease with which such discrepancies can be explained away which renders the contribution of the fossil record largely meaningless to the secular evolution story. In the provided study they changed the evolution story by over 1 billion years without batting an eyelid; no fanfare or puzzlement – as you rightly point out. It is testament to the success of the propaganda that they could get the world to consider millions to billions of years as insignificant (i.e. in the context of so-called geological time). It's a confirmation bias towards acceptance of the secular evolution story – regardless of the nature of the evidence. Because ultimately, if you're not impressed with a billion years, I think you could be beyond convincing.

We are led to believe that the fossil record provides some unified picture of history supporting the secular story (with maybe some rare anomalies). But in reality, the story is constantly being changed to accommodate new discoveries – i.e. discoveries which are out-of-place with the existing story – warranting post-hoc changes to the story. Therefore any claim to consistency between the current story and the current facts is also meaningless.

Even when a contrary fact can't be explained away, it can be dismissed as an unresolved mystery (like with the pollen example). This inherent flexibility in the secular story, and constant changes to the secular story, somehow fails to find its way into the public impression. And so everyone who doesn't investigate for themselves thinks there is some long-standing consistency between the fossil record and the secular story. Even some who do investigate can't see their way through the confirmation bias of the secular back-story.

 

[one.opinion]

7 hours ago, Tristen said:

We are led to believe that the fossil record provides some unified picture of history supporting the secular story (with maybe some rare anomalies). But in reality, the story is constantly being changed to accommodate new discoveries

Isn’t this to be expected, though? Scientists do their best to derive explanations for what has been observed. When new discoveries come into view, it is only correct to incorporate new information into the explanations. Crime scene investigators do this all the time.

7 hours ago, Tristen said:

Even some who do investigate can't see their way through the confirmation bias of the secular back-story

This is certainly worth considering, thanks for engaging on this topic.

[Enoch2021]

8 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Isn’t this to be expected, though?

Ahhh, no.

 

Quote

Scientists do their best to derive explanations for what has been observed.

Ahhh, no.  That's what PRIESTS and Philosophers do.

Scientists, on the other hand, provide Explanations and Illustrate their Confirmations through Validated EXPERIMENTS -- "Science".

See the Juxtaposition?

 

Quote

When new discoveries come into view, it is only correct to incorporate new information into the explanations.

Discoveries?? 

So let's say the Town Drunk is stumbling/bumbling/fumbling through the woods and DISCOVERS (Discover), a Mastodon Tusk; is the town drunk now a Scientist? 

Explanations (Stories) aren't "Science", Explanations via Validated Experiment IS "Science".

 

Quote

Crime scene investigators do this all the time.

Well "Crime Scene Investigators" aren't "Scientists".  Thanks for providing that example.

 

regards

[Tristen]

8 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Isn’t this to be expected, though? Scientists do their best to derive explanations for what has been observed. When new discoveries come into view, it is only correct to incorporate new information into the explanations. Crime scene investigators do this all the time.

This is certainly worth considering, thanks for engaging on this topic.

“Isn’t this to be expected, though? Scientists do their best to derive explanations for what has been observed. When new discoveries come into view, it is only correct to incorporate new information into the explanations.”

Of course, but that process is not the source of my criticism. My issue is with the public impression generated by propaganda, implying that the evidence gives us a unified, largely-unchanging picture of history – which in turn gives the false impression that the secular interpretation is the only rational, reasonable approach to the facts. When in reality, the secular story is constantly encountering contrary facts requiring the story to be reconsidered and changed. Broad indoctrination with this false impression makes it difficult for people to question the prevailing paradigm or give fair consideration to alternatives - but easy to believe that those proposing the alternatives are dishonest, evidence-ignoring, anti-science fanatics.

I think the effect of this impression is evident in our conversation. Consider your previous response – the main point of which was to mitigate the implication of an over 1 billion year range extension. From my perspective, some aspects of this conversation have the feel like a Monty Python sketch; “70 million years! - tis but a scratch in time, 1 billion years! – merely a flesh-wound”.

 

“Crime scene investigators do this all the time”

Right, forensics is the same kind of historical investigation as we are discussing. Courts are aware of the limitations of this kind of investigation – which is why juries are instructed to come to conclusions “beyond reasonable doubt”.

Juries also get to hear two full, equal accounts; i.e. alternate interpretations of the same facts in support of two opposing stories. Whereas with the secular vs creation issue, most people are exclusively saturated with only the secular story (in education, books, documentaries, news media – even popular fiction media). This again gives the false impression of only one valid way to deal with the facts, and thereby places barriers in the way of reasonable debate.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Tristen

[Mike Mclees]

Question ? In the light of what seems to be an endless universe and our earth as a micro speck in its mist. What does that make us and all the life  thereof.  

Edited January 6, 2018 by Mike Mclees