|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,743 Year: 4,000/9,624 Month: 871/974 Week: 198/286 Day: 5/109 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: why creation "science" isn't science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"John Paul:
Are you familiar with Humphreys book, Starlight and Time? He concludes that: "The visible universe was once inside an event horizon (This means it was once either within a black hole or a white hole. We have seen that if it were inside a black hole, it would be contracting, which is not indicated by the evidence. Therefore The visible universe was once inside a white hole. (It may, however, have commenced as a black hole before expansion started...) pg 24 As the event horizon was crossing Earth, billions of years or processes would be taking place outside of that event horizon and that God basically Created the universe using general relativity."--Gotta get that book ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
Has anyone posted thsi link yet?
So you want to become a 'Creation Scientist'... Follow the links in that article for a more detail. This is what I have been trying to tell people. Creationists look at the same evidence- the same DNA, rocks, atoms, stars, fossils, living organisms etc., just come to different conclusions because of a differing worldview. Newton knew the universe was God's Creation, so did Kepler- does that make their scientific discoveries less for that? ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
TC...on my new thread,you implied that i did not understand the world wide flood...what exactly did you mean by this...what did i not understand?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Isn't that what I said? When the word faith is applied to creationism it means "strong belief in the doctrines of religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof". When creationists apply it to evolution they mean "strongly held belief or theory". The two meanings are different (both taken from New Oxford Dictionary), & are conflated by creationists, in the hope that a casual reader will take the meaning of faith re. evolution as "strong belief in the doctrines of religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof". If not, whats the point in saying so? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
Unfortunately the scientific method is designed to test "interpretations" of the data. Please provide how to test the creation "model" that everyone keeps claiming exists. Indeed, weren't you off to come up with one? What happened there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
A question has been posted in a new thread. Please address it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"TC...on my new thread,you implied that i did not understand the world wide flood...what exactly did you mean by this...what did i not understand?"
--You didn't understand, I would not accuse you of purposfully missunderstanding, or ignoring, but you seem to be well attached to what you believe in now, and thus rejecting the mechenisms for the flood whether I prove it feasable or not, I have found a few but not many contredictions in your posts towards me also, as It seems I am changing your views on different aspects but then seem to want to ignore it. The mechenisms for the flood are what you don't seem to want to swallow, I would be very happy to further discuss the various implications of the flood. ------------------ [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-30-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
quote: From the above link:
quote: Extracted from JP's message above quote: What "different conclusions" are they going to come up with, other that the "Biblical perspective" they already have going into the study? What if the creation scientists discover that that earth wasn't created in 6 days, isn't quite young, etc.? Just like the Rev. Adam Sedgewick did, many years ago. Moose ------------------BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe [This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-30-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
quote: Well that was a nice tap dance number on your part to avoid answering a simple question...very creationist-like. There have been absolutely no contradiction in my posts reguarding your arguments,most of which i have allready pointed out to be irrevocably flawed. Allow me to point out one exemple among many. The other day,i told you that your Bible was quite clear on the fact that every land dwelling things and every foil(flying creatures) not in the Ark perished. You went on about a one day experiment with leaves,insects and swimming pool and tried to equate that to an aproximation of the biblical flood to show that insects could have riden out the flood and answered every one of my very logical counterpoints with your usual groundless "but things were different back then"...well here you go,strait out of the book of Genesis... 007:022 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that wasin the dry land, died. 007:023 And EVERY LIVING SUBSTANCE was destroyed which was upon theface of the ground, both man, and cattle, and THE CREEPING THINGS, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. Cant get any clearer than that...not only were those whose nostril were the breath of life but EVERYTHING that dwelled on land...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"What "different conclusions" are they going to come up with, other that the "Biblical perspective" they already have going into the study?"
--interperetation is something you will see all throughout the debate, we see things in a different interperetation, for example, dating methods, you would say that these give you dates, we say they give you measurements, not dates, strata, you say that they were deposited over millions of years being why they are so uniform and contain fossils displaying evolutionary time scales, we say that thes signify a Massive flood of a Global scale, etc. "What if the creation scientists discover that that earth wasn't created in 6 days, isn't quite young, etc.?"--Then we've got a problem. "Just like the Rev. Adam Sedgewick did, many years ago."--Argument from athority doesn't really work too well. ------------------ [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-30-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
And science is designed to choose between different interpretations. This isn't a postmodern enterprise. Saying you have a different interpretation is rather irrelevant. What is relevant is whether your 'interpretation' stands up to being tested.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Well that was a nice tap dance number on your part to avoid answering a simple question...very creationist-like."
--A vague question gets a vague answer. "There have been absolutely no contradiction in my posts reguarding your arguments,most of which i have allready pointed out to be irrevocably flawed."--Why can't you prove their flaws then? As I have shown otherwize. "Allow me to point out one exemple among many."--Great, lets do that. "The other day,i told you that your Bible was quite clear on the fact that every land dwelling things and every foil(flying creatures) not in the Ark perished. You went on about a one day experiment with leaves,insects and swimming pool and tried to equate that to an aproximation of the biblical flood to show that insects could have riden out the flood and answered every one of my very logical counterpoints with your usual groundless "but things were different back then"...well here you go,strait out of the book of Genesis..."--Genesis is extreamly clear that only everything outside the ark that breaths through lungs and walks on the ground perished, nothing else completely died out. Obviously things were different back then, I hope you can agree with this, and is evident that they were, 900 pound beavers, etc. As for your 'well here you go,strait out of the book of Genesis..."'. I really don't know what your talking about. "007:022 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that wasin the dry land, died." --Yup sure did. "007:023 And EVERY LIVING SUBSTANCE was destroyed which was upon theface of the ground, both man, and cattle, and THE CREEPING THINGS, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark." --Amen "Cant get any clearer than that...not only were those whose nostril were the breath of life but EVERYTHING that dwelled on land..."--Pretty close, the bible says everything that has the breath of life And dwelled on the earth died. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"And science is designed to choose between different interpretations."
--Not exactly right, science tells us what we are viewing, ie science tells us we have so much of a quantity of radioisotopes in a given sample, science tells us their decay rate, science tells us many other things about the world, what we do is say what this means, ie the interperetation. "This isn't a postmodern enterprise. Saying you have a different interpretation is rather irrelevant. What is relevant is whether your 'interpretation' stands up to being tested."--Sure is. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
you're just concentrating on the first paragraphe while completely ignoring the second...those are two different description of what occured...not one and the same. meaning everything with the breath of life AND everything that creeps on the earth AND every foil in the air.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"you're just concentrating on the first paragraphe while completely ignoring the second...those are two different description of what occured...not one and the same. meaning everything with the breath of life AND everything that creeps on the earth AND every foil in the air."
--No I am taking both into consideration, and they both say the same thing, elaborated more in one though. "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that wasin the dry land, died." --Between '...the breath of life', and 'of all that...' it is a run-on sentence, simple english grammer, it is a continuation of the sentence, thus including both those in whose nostrils was the breath of life and was on the dry land. ------------------ "And EVERY LIVING SUBSTANCE was destroyed which was upon theface of the ground"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024