6 days Creation

[Kevinb]

6 hours ago, HAZARD said:

Don't be a fool

 

6 hours ago, HAZARD said:

A dense, stupid, and impious man has no delight in knowledge though he should discover it

How about you stop childish name calling and personal insults and form an actual argument based on evidence and theory..reviewed would help also. 

Edited August 10, 2017 by Kevinb

[Kevinb]

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

I addressed the specific part of the sentence that was relevant (because you trusting in “theories” and “evidence” is irrelevant to the definition of assertion). An assertion is an assertion whether or not it is supported by “theories” or “evidence”. An Unsupported Assertion is a criticism of the way you argue your point, not whether or not you think your claims can be supported. You made assertions and expected me to uncritically take your word that they were beyond question.

True I've given nothing in this thread on theory of gravity and germ theory of disease. You don't think they are our best current models? I need to convince you of those? I suspect you do accept these as they don't readily conflict biblical statements.  Re evolution we've been exploring that.. mainly whales thus far? I prefer to try and keep posts small ish to make them more manageable. I dumped masses of points exposing problems with global flood in another thread and no one was able to answer even a fraction.

 

[Kevinb]

  8 hours ago, Tristen said:

I addressed the specific part of the sentence that was relevant (because you trusting in “theories” and “evidence” is irrelevant to the definition of assertion). An assertion is an assertion whether or not it is supported by “theories” or “evidence”. An Unsupported Assertion is a criticism of the way you argue your point, not whether or not you think your claims canbe supported. You made assertions and expected me to uncritically take your word that they were beyond question.

True I've given nothing in this thread on theory of gravity and germ theory of disease. You don't think they are our best current models? I need to convince you of those? I suspect you do accept these as they don't readily conflict biblical statements.  Re evolution we've been exploring that.. mainly whales thus far? I prefer to try and keep posts small ish to make them more manageable. I dumped masses of points exposing problems with global flood in another thread and no one was able to answer even a fraction.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

“Correct I've not published evidence for lots of scientific theories here in different fields..I'd given you credit that you had some knowledge of them”

 

Innuendo regarding my lack of knowledge is further fallacy.

Erm I was saying you have knowledge of them..gravity and germ theory of disease. This isn't a lack of knowledge. However you could say me thinking you have knowledge here is a fallacy. If you don't then start researching. 

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

Neither dolphins nor whales have anything resembling anatomical legs.

Well you're not a anatomist. Lets try flippers..to arms. Course could have chosen human arm to a dog's leg..a bats wing... 

http://www.tmmsn.org/education/dolphin_anatomy.htm

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

We all prefer interpretations that are consistent with our preferred faith perspective.

If you a Christian in this case yes. The machine of science doesn't have faith in the same way. We've not decided the end answers from day 1 from 1 book from authority then try intrepet evidence to fit it. Science operates from we don't know..lets find out and we will ditch if necessary whether it's evolution or anything else.

More to follow..

Edited August 10, 2017 by Kevinb

[one.opinion]

16 hours ago, da_man1974 said:

But i cant get over thst some people believe the earth is flat. Wow. I thiught that went out the window in the 1400's. 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Magellan's expedition has a lot to say about that particular topic.

[one.opinion]

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

The Biblical model doesn’t claim the animals died “all at once”. The floodwaters rose over time.

From a geological time standpoint, 40 days is pretty much "all at once". I understand it is very popular to brush away majority opinions with the "appealing to consensus fallacy". This might be suitable for disciplines in which it is much more difficult to find a "true" answer, like theology or sociology, but it doesn't pertain as well to science. When answers are derived by study and evidence, it really does matter what a vast majority of experts in a particular field agree upon. Here is a link from a Christian organization with a quick summary of the fossil record: http://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/fossil-record. I don't know how convincing you will find it, but it is short and probably worth reading.

 

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

That depends on how much trust you place in radiometric dating. Radiometric dating relies foundationally on at least 3 unverifiable assumptions, namely 1) that the original conditions of the tested substance is known, 2) that nothing has effected (or can effect) the rates of radiometric decay over time (a secular assumption called uniformitarianism), and 3) that no ancillary process has changed the chemical levels in the ‘dated’ substance over time. The method cannot be logically trusted at all if any of these assumptions fail – and there are various studies showing each of these assumptions to be untrustworthy (which I’d be happy to discuss in more detail if interested).

I agree that these assumptions are important to radiometric dating. This has also stood up to scientific scrutiny and has been improved and refined even in the last few decades. Here is another relatively short article that mentions some creationist criticisms of dating and offers responses: http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/reliability.php.

 

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

A popular creationist model has a post-flood ice-age – which would have left temporary land bridges between the Asian and Australian continents. The secular model suggests something similar, but obviously on a different time scale.

Even assuming there was a solid and complete navigable bridge between Asia and Australia, it seems incredible that only the marsupials would take this particular route, while the placental mammals did not. The secular model suggests that Australia became geographically isolated at a time before the development of placental mammals in other parts of the world. The mammals of the isolated continent remained marsupial, while placental varieties developed and spread everywhere else, a model consistent with observable fact.

 

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

I am not comfortable with being able to dismiss the clear reading of scripture in such a seemingly arbitrary manner. Why stop at Genesis and Revelation? Why not say that any passage that makes us uncomfortable was written for some other purpose than the clear reading suggests? Especially when there is no objective scientific reason to reject the clear reading.

I can't say I'm completely comfortable with it either. I grew up with a YEC background and the factor that I have had the most difficulty coming to grips with in my transition to evolutionary creation is the Bible. The science (once many of the things I had been taught were proved incorrect) was easy to overcome, but I still hold Biblical authority with very high esteem and this has been a process over decades. But in the tradition of Francis Bacon, I respect God's revelation both through His Word and through His Works. True, science is a human endeavor and is therefore fallible, but those that point this out are often blind to the fact that theology is also a human endeavor. I don't think Genesis would have had the same impact or carried the same meaning to the original audience if it was bogged down with scientific details that the Hebrew people would have had no framework to understand. The important message of the early parts of Genesis is that God alone is creator and preeminent over all things. All creation is at His feet. I do understand your concerns about this approach, but let me also reiterate that this is not a salvation issue. The Bible clearly teaches that actionable belief in Jesus Christ, His incarnation, His sacrifice, and His resurrection is what is required for salvation, not a literal interpretation of Genesis. It breaks my heart to see young people that were taught misleading and fallacious information about evolution (as I was) become confronted with the theory of evolution without the proper explanation and teaching to steady their Christian worldview.

 

[Enoch2021]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I understand it is very popular to brush away majority opinions with the "appealing to consensus fallacy".

Brush Away??    That's what an Appeal to Consensus Fallacy "Is".

It's tantamount to "brushing away" Dumplings on the basis and because of, it's: a small savory ball of dough (usually made with suet) that may be boiled, fried, or baked in a casserole.

 

Quote

This might be suitable for disciplines in which it is much more difficult to find a "true" answer, like theology or sociology,

It's the NUMBER #1 (And "ONLY") technique employed by: astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, paleontology, geology, anthropology, archaeology, evolutionary biology (Whatever that is??), theoretical physics.

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

 

Quote

...but it doesn't pertain as well to science.

It doesn't Pertain at ALL to Science; it's the ANTITHESIS of IT!

 

Quote

When answers are derived by study and evidence, it really does matter what a vast majority of experts in a particular field agree upon.

When the Answers are derived by "EXPERIMENT", you meant to say.

 

Quote

Here is a link from a Christian organization with a quick summary of the fossil record: http://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/fossil-record. I don't know how convincing you will find it, but it is short and probably worth reading.

Crocheting is more Scientific than Fossils/Fossil Record.

 

Quote

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Magellan's expedition has a lot to say about that particular topic.

Well you can circumnavigate an Album (LP) till the cows come home by simply representing Magnetic North with the hole. 

 

Quote

I agree that these assumptions are important to radiometric dating.

"Assumptions" are important for Philosophers, not Scientists.

You call this an assumption...

 1. Any 5th Grade General Science Graduate knows Prima Facia, that ALL "Dating Methods" are OUTSIDE of the Scientific Method; Errr..." Sciences " Purview, for goodness sakes.

You have NO....: "Independent Variable", so as to Form a Valid Scientific Hypothesis to TEST then VALIDATE your *PREDICTION*. Ahhh... "SCIENCE" ! 

a. So "Independent Variables" are the "Input" (The Cause) that is CHANGED "manipulated by the scientist" so as to measure/validate the "Output" (The Effect) "Dependent Variables"---Predictions.

b. "Independent Variables" are sine qua non (indispensable, as it were) to Scientific Hypothesis construction, then Ipso Facto Experiments!! So can you please elaborate: How on Earth can you CHANGE the "INPUT" and TEST your Prediction on a Past Event (lol) without a Time Machine, Pray Tell....?

You're in a simple Category Error. The Scientific Method is used to Validate "Cause and Effect" Relationships...it's Non Sequitur (Fallacy) to use it to extrapolate "age". It's tantamount to using a Framing Square to calculate the GNP of the Netherlands, for goodness sakes.

Ergo... A Better Question: Given the Immutable Fact that it is OUTSIDE the Scientific Method and can never be VALIDATED, why on Earth are these "Long Ages" PUSHED ad nauseam, mainly by Pseudo-Scientists...Then Stage 5 Clung to with a Kung Fu Death Grip then Blindly Parroted by the masses as Fact and all challengers ridiculed endlessly for even bringing the topic up, Pray Tell...??? Sounds like "Propaganda" to me, you? It's mind numbing.

 

2. You heard of Quantum Mechanics, per adventure?? ...

The 'Radioactive Decay Law', as is the case for ALL Physical Laws, is Consequent -- "Contingent" upon Quantum Mechanical Laws...

 

"The Laws of Physics are ALWAYS Quantum Mechanical Laws."

Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale. Quantum Mechanics II. (33:50 minute mark)

 

i.e., The following condition MUST EXIST (NECESSARY ANTECEDENT) before you can Appeal to the Radioactive Decay Law...it's kinda 'HARD to get Around':

According to Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, described by Erwin Schrodinger --- THEN... Validated Repeatedly via Thousands of "EXPERIMENTS" without Exception(!!) for the past 100 years with the most successful branch of Physics in the History of "Actual" Science, Quantum Mechanics... :

Independent of the KNOWLEDGE of the "Which-Path Information" -- or of it EXISTING... particles (Photons, All Elementary Particles, Atoms, Molecules) have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of "A Wave Function" which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, "Matter" doesn't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities. Wave "Functions" aren't "WAVES"(Classical Peak/Troughs) they are "Potentialities" i.e., Probabilities, they have no Mass/Energy. To put it another way, the "Wave" of a Wave Function is not a "Wave" in "Physical Space", it's merely an abstract mathematical construct.

So... "Matter" (Our Reality) doesn't exist without, FIRST: A "Knower"/Existence of the "Which-Path" Information. 

Read carefully...

“It begins to look as WE ourselves, by OUR last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that WE ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The PAST is NOT really the PAST until is has been REGISTERED. Or to put it another way, THE PAST has NO MEANING or EXISTENCE unless it exists as a RECORD in the present.”

Prof. John Wheeler "Referenced in"; The Ghost In The Atom; Page 66-68.

So... unless you can provide The Name of the Person who "Originally" Observed these Rocks, Date/Time Stamped -- REGISTERED and Recorded THEM (Then a Chain of Continuous Observational CUSTODY till current times) ... Then you MUST provide:

 

The "Decay Rate" for a Wave of Potentialities...?

 

It'll be easier Sprouting Broccoli from your ARMPITS !!!! 

 

Quote

This has also stood up to scientific scrutiny and has been improved and refined even in the last few decades.

I'd say there's a better chance of Liberace being resurrected sporting a purple tutu and jumping on a chartreuse hobbled unicorn and riding around the Sombrero Galaxy.

But please, go ahead and SUPPORT this Pseudo-Science Scrutiny...?

 

Quote

Here is another relatively short article that mentions some creationist criticisms of dating and offers responses: http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/reliability.php.

Post my response (above) to your Fairytale Pseudo-Science Priests.  In Fact, why don't you email them and have them come here and I'll whip them around by their Pseudo-Intellectual Short Hairs for a spell, mmm K? 

 

Quote

The secular model suggests...

 

'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science!!

Please show "models" in the Scientific Method...? (and not "Ball-Stick" Airplane 'Models' Either !!! lol)...?

"A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a LIMITATION ON IT'S VALIDITY." https://www.thoughtco.com/hypothesis-model-theory-and-law-2699066

Allow me to translate: "Pseudo-Science" ...There is no such animal as a Scientific Hypothesis with 'limited validity' it's tantamount to a woman being 'A LITTLE' PREGNANT !!

REAL Scientific Hypotheses are either CONFIRMED or INVALIDATED, PERIOD...End of Story!! Furthermore, Scientific Hypotheses do not exist in PERPETUITY or wait for more DATA !!! 'Data' comes FROM Experiments --- (Hypothesis TESTS). A "model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UN-TESTABLE !!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !! smh

 

Quote

that Australia became geographically isolated at a time before the development of placental mammals in other parts of the world. The mammals of the isolated continent remained marsupial, while placental varieties developed and spread everywhere else, a model consistent with observable fact.

Yes and Invisible Fire Breathing Dragons Exist because there's burn/scorch marks on my garage wall; why...well, it's:"a model consistent with observable fact." 

 

Quote

...coming to grips with in my transition to evolutionary creation...

This'll give Married Bachelors, Achromatic Rainbows, and Military Intelligence a run for their monies. 

a. 'evolution' What's that...?? Define evolution...?

b. Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

c. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a REAL Scientific Theory...?

d. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...?

e. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...?

 

Quote

The science (once many of the things I had been taught were proved incorrect)

What "Science"...?

What was proved incorrect...?

 

Quote

True, science is a human endeavor and is therefore fallible

What is Science...?

 

Quote

but those that point this out are often blind to the fact that theology is also a human endeavor.

The Word of God isn't "Theology"... it's The Word of God; Ergo...clumsy False Equivalence Fallacy.

 

Quote

I don't think Genesis would have had the same impact or carried the same meaning to the original audience if it was bogged down with scientific details that the Hebrew people would have had no framework to understand.

1.  Key Phrase: "I don't think".

2.  Genesis wasn't the solely written for The Jews...it was written for EVERYONE:

(2 Timothy 3:16) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Where does it say in Scripture that Genesis... or any other book for that matter, was solely for The Jews...?

 

Quote

The important message of the early parts of Genesis is that God alone is creator and preeminent over all things.

Every Part of Genesis and Every Word of Scripture is 'the important message'...

(Matthew 4:4) "But he answered and said,  It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

 

Quote

The Bible clearly teaches that actionable belief in Jesus Christ, His incarnation, His sacrifice, and His resurrection is what is required for salvation, not a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Really??  (Matthew 4:4) "But he answered and said,  It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Sure looks LITERAL to me.

 

Quote

It breaks my heart to see young people that were taught misleading and fallacious information about evolution (as I was)...

"evolution"?  What's that?? (SEE above and previous posts to YOU without so much as a "Whisper").

 

Quote

...become confronted with the theory of evolution without the proper explanation and teaching to steady their Christian worldview.

'evolution' (Whatever that is ??), has about as much to do with Christianity as Boll Weevils have to do with Ring Laser Gyros. 

 

regards

[da_man1974]

14 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

Well you can circumnavigate an Album (LP) till the cows come home by simply representing Magnetic North with the hole. 

Are you just trying to troll or do you really believe the world is flat?

[dprprb]

5 minutes ago, da_man1974 said:

Are you just trying to troll or do you really believe the world is flat?

...Ive wasted my time checking sources quoted to make sure Im not missing something and ...dont waste your time. 

[Guest Teditis]

The 6 (literal) days are clearly spoken in Genesis chapter 1... what's the need for discussion.

Seems clear-cut and dried as far as I'm concerned.

[Tristen]

9 hours ago, Kevinb said:

  8 hours ago, Tristen said:

I addressed the specific part of the sentence that was relevant (because you trusting in “theories” and “evidence” is irrelevant to the definition of assertion). An assertion is an assertion whether or not it is supported by “theories” or “evidence”. An Unsupported Assertion is a criticism of the way you argue your point, not whether or not you think your claims canbe supported. You made assertions and expected me to uncritically take your word that they were beyond question.

True I've given nothing in this thread on theory of gravity and germ theory of disease. You don't think they are our best current models? I need to convince you of those?...

Hello again Kevin,

“True I've given nothing in this thread on theory of gravity and germ theory of disease. You don't think they are our best current models? I need to convince you of those? I suspect you do accept these as they don't readily conflict biblical statements”

Correct. It would be redundant for you to provide lengthy arguments for things we agree on. Those issues are not being debated. But when you make statements with which I clearly disagree, those claims need to be supported by argument and/or evidence. Otherwise you are simply stating your opinion – and giving me nothing to seriously consider or respond to.

 

“Re evolution we've been exploring that.. mainly whales thus far?”

I contest the secular model of Common Ancestry. I somewhat avoid the term “evolution” because it is so highly equivocal – i.e. it can mean a range of concepts (such as Natural Selection, speciation, mutations etc.) with which I have no issue - as they are in no way inconsistent with the Biblical model. But "evolution" can also mean Common Ancestry. I prefer the use of more precise language to avoid misunderstandings.

 

“I dumped masses of points exposing problems with global flood in another thread and no one was able to answer even a fraction”

I use this forum to procrastinate, and don’t really have extra time to jump threads looking for posts. But if you have 1 or 2 “problems” you find particularly compelling, I’ll be happy to take a look here.

 

“Well you're not a anatomist. Lets try flippers..to arms. Course could have chosen human arm to a dog's leg..a bats wing...”

So in the broadest possible sense, limbs across the animal spectrum could be said to have some similarities. But they are also very different in many ways. So the fact of broad similarity does not obligate one to a conclusion that one form evolved into/from another - any more than their differences obligate a conclusion of being specifically designed for purpose. Which interpretation you prefer depends on the paradigm through which you interpret the facts.

And you know what fins resemble more than legs – fins. Extra fins on bottlenose dolphins could be interpreted many ways. It could be that the gene is highly recessive, and so rarely expressed. It could be that the gene was turned off in an ancestor, but turned back on in rare cases (i.e. by mutation). These explanations reflect observations in other species, and are therefore more plausible than the ‘evolved from legs’ explanation; a proposed mechanism of change which has never been directly observed.

 

“If you a Christian in this case yes. The machine of science doesn't have faith in the same way. We've not decided the end answers from day 1 from 1 book from authority then try intrepet evidence to fit it. Science operates from we don't know..lets find out and we will ditch if necessary whether it's evolution or anything else.”

This is naïve – and the main problem with the whole debate; i.e. that people advocating secular models don’t understand the influence presupposition has on the interpretation process. Objectivity might be the ideal, but it not the reality. Once you involve humans in the interpretation process, you involve their personal faith biases and agendas. This is particularly evident when the claims involve a clash of paradigms. And this is demonstrable - Creationists have the same facts as everyone else. However, we interpret those very same facts differently. If there are different interpretations of the same facts, then exclusive adherence to one demonstrates an influence of bias.