Originally posted by klaus54
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
What is Creation Science or "Biblical Creation"? Simple words, but how to flesh out?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostGive us a testable hypothesis -- a specific hypothesis -- and we won't have to waste your time.
K54
P.S. The star formation example Jim gave is testable and is in fact supported since we can DIRECTLY observe star systems at various stages of formation. We see planetary nebulae, a system in the t-Tauri stage, exoplanets, etc. It's like an alien space mission landing on Earth and trying to figure out H. sapiens lifecycle but having only three days to do so. They would observe women becoming pregnant, babies being born, toddlers, children, adolescents, young adults, adults in the reproductive stage, adults past the reproductive stage, very worn-out adults, and finally people dying. The only point where this analogy fails is that the aliens would have no way of measuring the time it takes. Astronomers have that luxury due to vast distances and the finite speed of light in vacuo.
Oh, just a tangential note in passing -- if you think light has changed speed or radioactive decay rates have change, then Google "Supernova 1987a". But that's a whole 'nother discussion.
The comparison you give with a pregnant woman is ridiculous, disingenuous and not entirely honest. It's also a very familiar cop-out by people in your Faith System - "we cannot observe it because it takes too long for humans to observe". Yeah, right. Hey, there was a unicorn in my back yard - honest! - but he was moving too fast for me to take a picture of it. So, are you convinced of the unicorn in my back yard? I didn't think so. Just because YOU wish to adopt certain beliefs doesn't me that others that are more discerning and critical than you are have to adopt those beliefs.
BTW, is someone paying you to torment me? It really doesn't matter because in two days I'll be on travel and I'll put the whole flock of you critters into my back burner. Maybe I'll have a bit of time to kill and open up TWeb on my trip but I won't try very hard. I mean, why would I - to speak with people .... (errr, erase that) ... with regurgitating parrots incapable of original thinking?
JorgeLast edited by Jorge; 04-24-2014, 05:52 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View PostNO ONE has seen a star form, nor can they because the (alleged) process takes vast amounts of time.
Jorge
Has anyone directly observed variation/sub-speciation happening in the wild such that they saw that it was a natural process, and God did not actually cause it by direct command?
The Bible always tells us that God causes rain and rainfall by his direct action and direct command. Nowhere does it tell us that God created natural process to cause rain and rainfall. So do you believe the Bible concerning this matter, or do you believe meteorological science which claims that rain and rain fall are caused by natural processes.Last edited by rwatts; 04-24-2014, 05:57 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rwatts View PostHi Jorge,
I note you completely avoided my claim that your micro/macro distinction is utterly charged with non neutral metaphysics, even your micro claims are not metaphysically neutral. They are full of non neutral metaphysics.
Afraid to discuss it Jorge?
I only wrote that we do have something. I made no claim that we were nearly there. Here are two examples of the kind of thing we do have:-
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/ja0706955
http://phys.org/news/2012-10-rna-rib...5dResearchers/
There is a lot of this kind of stuff in the research literature. But Jorge, what you did not want to see was this question:-
Be honest Jorge. You simply ran off when you saw that one. Care to address it now, or do you remain running?
Oh, I'd be rich if I were given 5 cents for every time a creationist wrote this as opposed to addressing the points of an argument. I've had it put to me two or three times this week by creationists, devoid of anything to say. Jorge? I can just as easily write to you "I can only suggest that if you genuinely seek the truth ..."
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View PostI've had plenty - I mean PLENTY - of experience with you, Roland, and the only person that beats you hands down was Tiggy. I honestly reached the conclusion that 'your cheese has slid off the cracker' and don't bother with you any more (other than to poke fun, like here). You seem like a "nice" enough fella' but that's about as far as I'll go. Take care.
Jorge
When you were running the USAF, did any one respond to questions and points of argument from you, in the way you respond to questions and points of argument here? If so, what did you say to them?Last edited by rwatts; 04-24-2014, 06:03 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rwatts View PostSo Jorge, about this true evolution as opposed to false evolution.
Has anyone directly observed variation/sub-speciation happening in the wild such that they saw that it was a natural process, and God did not actually cause it by direct command?
The Bible always tells us that God causes rain and rainfall by his direct action and direct command. Nowhere does it tell us that God created natural process to cause rain and rainfall. So do you believe the Bible concerning this matter, or do you believe meteorological science which claims that rain and rain fall are caused by natural processes.
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View PostSee what I mean? You've been harping that ill-conceived argument for so long that it has rusted through-and-through and I've given up on it. Oops ... Out of time ................. have a good night.
Jorge
You have no answer to that question, do you Jorge. So ....
Originally posted by Jorgehave a good night.
Running away is NEVER nice. And surely it is not Godly behaviour.Last edited by rwatts; 04-24-2014, 06:07 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View PostSee what I mean? You've been harping that ill-conceived argument for so long that it has rusted through-and-through and I've given up on it. Oops ... Out of time ................. have a good night.
Jorge
You almost always argue by assertion. Please correct me if I am wrong but is this because, as a person who has been reborn in Christ, a person who believes the Bible, a person who has an intimate relationship with God, and a person whose every word and deed are guided by and inspired by God, then do you think that your assertions are all that is needed when dealing with your opponents?Last edited by rwatts; 04-24-2014, 07:46 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View PostYou appear to be nothing more than a parrot - incapable of original / independent thinking - that merely regurgitates arguments that he has heard. The "star formation" you speak of is but a weak hypothesis based on a number of assumptions, the main one being ideological, not scientific. NO ONE has seen a star form, nor can they because the (alleged) process takes vast amounts of time. What the Faithful (as yourself) have done is observe one thing and then another and a third. Then they create a model that ties them together as "different stages of a single process".
The comparison you give with a pregnant woman is ridiculous, disingenuous and not entirely honest. It's also a very familiar cop-out by people in your Faith System - "we cannot observe it because it takes too long for humans to observe". Yeah, right. Hey, there was a unicorn in my back yard - honest! - but he was moving too fast for me to take a picture of it. So, are you convinced of the unicorn in my back yard? I didn't think so. Just because YOU wish to adopt certain beliefs doesn't me that others that are more discerning and critical than you are have to adopt those beliefs.
BTW, is someone paying you to torment me? It really doesn't matter because in two days I'll be on travel and I'll put the whole flock of you critters into my back burner. Maybe I'll have a bit of time to kill and open up TWeb on my trip but I won't try very hard. I mean, why would I - to speak with people .... (errr, erase that) ... with regurgitating parrots incapable of original thinking?
Jorge
So give us a testable hypothesis generated by ID. Try harder this time. I have faith in you.
K54
P.S. Did you get that "unicorn" thing from the AKJV1611?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View PostWhat you call "derogatory comments" is nothing more than me calling a spade, a spade. I'm sorry that the you find the truth "derogatory", Jim.
The three "simple" counter-examples that you provide are embarrassing, to say the least. Don't you realize that you are invoking something that you need to first demonstrate? No, of course you don't.
1) I'm pointing out just how poorly defined your terms are.
2) We observe these processes at all phases. THE ONLY POWER CAPABLE OF PREVENTING NATURAL FORCES AND TIME FROM CONNECTING THEM IS GOD HIMSELF. Literally trillions of examples across the universe. Stars and planetary systems are forming by the millions across this Galaxy alone. And each one is a complex, functioning system. And the instructions that drive their formation where written onto the very fabric of space time within the first day of creation.
You are assuming that Mars, the Sun and the Solar System self-organized ... that is PRECISELY what hard-core Materialists assume. How many times over the years have I pointed out the extremely high level of solidarity that you have with Materialists? You see, for me self-organization was NOT how Mars, the Sun and the solar system came about. You may believe what you will, but don't be telling the world that you believe in one thing when you preach another.
God created the Earth and Mars and the Sun AND they formed over time and in accordance with the same physical laws we see forming stars and planetary systems all across this galaxy.
A mini-digression: Why don't you just come out, Jim? ... you know, just as Sylas did. I remember exchanging posts with Sylas when he was in your camp and I 'predicted' that he was on the path towards abandoning God altogether. When he finally made his announcement, I for one was not the least bit surprised. End of mini-digression.
I simply could not imagine ever actually encouraging a soul to do that. Wow!
Without your assumption, you have nothing - absolutely nada! Hey, let me prove that unicorns exist, okay? Watch: "My back yard was grazed upon and I have no cows. Therefore, it was a unicorn. QED." That is about what you did except that your adherence to an ideology blinds you to that fact.
Get a clue, O-Mudd. If you listen to me, you will.
Jorge
JimLast edited by oxmixmudd; 04-24-2014, 10:03 PM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by rwatts View PostJorge, I am fascinated by your method of arguing, because I see it so often from YECs across the various forums and on facebook. They will often argue only by assertion, always ask questions and rarely (if never) explain anything, and will often post bible verses along the lines of "they are without excuse". Many will even claim that they have a superior wisdom to the rest of us, given the nature of their belief.
You almost always argue by assertion. Please correct me if I am wrong but is this because, as a person who has been reborn in Christ, a person who believes the Bible, a person who has an intimate relationship with God, and a person whose every word and deed are guided by and inspired by God, then do you think that your assertions are all that is needed when dealing with your opponents?
Jorge, Get back to the OP. Flesh out "Biblical Scientific Creation" for us. Just a tiny little bit. Please! Bitte! Por favor! Παρακαλώ!
OK, If you want to keep harping on how ID is science, then show us one of its testable hypotheses. I mean one using terminology that has standard and tenable definition.
I'm going to play the Jorge game for a bit, i.e., argue via ipse dixit. 1) Creationism is scientific because (in some of its forms) is falsifiable. Unfortunately, it has been falsified ad nauseum. 2) ID is NOT scientific since it makes no testable hypotheses (without using neologism and bluster), hence is not falsifiable. It is rather a philosophy/theology rather than natural science. And PLEASE don't bring up self-assembling LED TVs or something like that.
Thanks again for your forbearance.
K54
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostYou realize you just committed petitio principe again? It's a the ol' YEC canard "Wuz u dere, Charley?"
Mature, sensible Christians simply don't get into these tangles, because they don't try those idiotic arguments in the first place.
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostYes, the venerable fallacy of projection. It's rife in YEC argumentation from their use of "presuppositions" to "Wuz u dere? Hmmm...??" and lots twixt and 'tween. Oh, yes, and of course the "argument by assertion".
Jorge, Get back to the OP. Flesh out "Biblical Scientific Creation" for us. Just a tiny little bit. Please! Bitte! Por favor! Παρακαλώ!
OK, If you want to keep harping on how ID is science, then show us one of its testable hypotheses. I mean one using terminology that has standard and tenable definition.
I'm going to play the Jorge game for a bit, i.e., argue via ipse dixit. 1) Creationism is scientific because (in some of its forms) is falsifiable. Unfortunately, it has been falsified ad nauseum. 2) ID is NOT scientific since it makes no testable hypotheses (without using neologism and bluster), hence is not falsifiable. It is rather a philosophy/theology rather than natural science. And PLEASE don't bring up self-assembling LED TVs or something like that.
Thanks again for your forbearance.
K54
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by rwatts View PostJorge, I am fascinated by your method of arguing, because I see it so often from YECs across the various forums and on facebook. They will often argue only by assertion, always ask questions and rarely (if never) explain anything, and will often post bible verses along the lines of "they are without excuse". Many will even claim that they have a superior wisdom to the rest of us, given the nature of their belief.
You almost always argue by assertion. Please correct me if I am wrong but is this because, as a person who has been reborn in Christ, a person who believes the Bible, a person who has an intimate relationship with God, and a person whose every word and deed are guided by and inspired by God, then do you think that your assertions are all that is needed when dealing with your opponents?
By the way, exactly same applies to Santa (K54) and to others here on TWeb (whom I shall not mention so as to not embarrass them - but they know who they are).
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostMy analogy was sound and cogent. How else would you propose astronomers to observe a star's lifecycle? Build a time-machine (actually a finite c is sort of a time machine)? You realize you just committed petitio principe again? It's a the ol' YEC canard "Wuz u dere, Charley?"
Look, I don't think that you people are either knowledgeable enough nor honest enough for this type of debate so why not just drop it, okay?
Jorge
So give us a testable hypothesis generated by ID. Try harder this time. I have faith in you.
K54
P.S. Did you get that "unicorn" thing from the AKJV1611?
Jorge
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 05-28-2024, 01:19 PM
|
18 responses
101 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
05-30-2024, 05:13 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 12:33 PM
|
9 responses
94 views
2 likes
|
Last Post 05-27-2024, 05:48 AM |
Comment