|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
You completely misunderstood the question. Straggler asked whether specifically creationist science, not science done by christians, has benefited the human race in any way. Has any science, based fundamentally from the view that God created the Earth, ever done anything for humankind? Has any such science ever been done period? You misunderstand what the real issue is all about. If the evolutionary model can be called "true science", which it is not, and taught in the classroom, then the belief that our Creator created the universe and all life therein should be given an equal opportunity. But the religion of the Theory of Evolutionists will not allow this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
Sure sure, they were different elements. But does every element fission like this? No? Then by your own logic, you're claim is fishy. What if chemical analysis is Satan's tool to fool scientists? Unless you can make a movie of the atom splitting into two separate atoms, emitting a ton of energy and a few more neutrons, then their claim is not true science, by your argument. I don't hear anyone else backing up your "fishy" argument. By the same token, what if the ToE is Satan's tool to fool you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
Those 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists I quoted --- do they know what "true science" is? Answer:
The start-to-finish ToE predictions/theories are off limits to true scientific research. If these 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists think the predictions of the start-to finish ToE model has been verified/proven to a high degree of accuracy and is true science, the answer is NO! If these 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists have verified/proven to a high degree of accuracy phenomena in other fields of study, then the answer is YES!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
And, of course, it would describe the theory of evolution perfectly. How else do scientists know that it's true, except that it predicts the facts of nature apparent to us now? I guess we will forever disagree on this matter of proof. Scientists know things are true by "proving" to a high degree of accuracy that things are as they are. This the ToE has not done nor ever will be be able to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
Just what is this "time factor" that you consider to be so problematic? The FACT that no one can duplicate the "time factor" long enough to prove the start-to-finish ToE model. True science actually proves to a high degree of accuracy that things are as they are within a certain time frame.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
So we're back to my question since you didn't answer it: Why? What part of the fossil record are you having trouble with? The part that actually "proves" to a high degree of accuracy over billions of years that the start-to-finish ToE model works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
Indeed. That's why the theory of evolution is the fundamental theorem of all biology. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. If it were so inaccurate, why would the entire biological community depend upon it? Are you saying they are frauds engaged in a conspiracy? The biology that makes sense is the biology that truly understands how the human body works and how to help fix it when something goes wrong, not a theory about how life evolved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
quote: Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handywork. Indeed it does. It is by studying the world we live in that we have come to the conclusion that the diversity of life we see on this planet is the result of evolution, not "intelligent design." If you really believed this, you would also believe that He intelligently designed this universe and all life therein. Huh? What part of "not 'intelligent design'" means "yes, 'intelligent design'"? The part that said, "Indeed it does", referring to Psa 19:1.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
72 Nobel Prize winning scientists say that:
The evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept. So you know perfectly well what they think of evolution, don't play dumb. Now, do they know what "true science is"? Yes or no? Answered in 355, for those who can read and understand plain English. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added link to message 355.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
The time factor that you demand is that life go from single cell to human in the span of a lifetime? This is a statement that you have made earlier in this thread. You know that this is impossible, you know that nowhere does the theory of evolution claim this to be the method of opperation. So why do you make such a ridiculous statement? We both know the ToE claims to be the explanation of how life can supposedly go from a single cell to humans. That is not the issue. The issue is that it can never be proven by you or by the 72 Nobel proze winning scientists, now matter how many fossils you trot out. All the fossil record shows is that certain creatures existed million of years before us. The fossil record doesn't tell you how they came into existance. For all you know, they could just as well have been created. The statement I made was that true science proves things in the here and now to a high degree of accuracy, enabling one to know as best as one can know what is true or not true. The T0E is certainly not true science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
(1) prove how gravity works and thereby engineer the force of gravity into other useful results, You got me there. I should have said, "understand" instead of prove. Those gravitons are tricky little things to find and catch. I noticed you didn't deal with the rest of the sentence, nor the other two.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
So you trust the biologists when they help solve medical problems but you don't trust them when they tell you something that goes against your religious beliefs? I use biologists and doctors that understand how the human body, whom God created, works, and how to help fix it when something goes wrong. I also have faith in my Creator that He works all things for the good of those who trust in Him, including divine healing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. I would be somewhat satisfied if evolutionists would simply say this, and then leave it at that. But if you will read many other posts on this topic, many others believe and state that the ToE is proven fact, not theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
Seeing how every scientist on this thread has disagreed with your statement that "science is proving to a high degree of accuracy," you should probably admit that this is not the definition of science. The scientific consensus has spoken against you. I started this discussiom by giving the following definition of science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as "obtained and tested" through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena (Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary) Then we get this kind of scientific method explained as science:
Extrapolating the predictions of the Theory of Evolution backwards in time predicts a fossil record exactly like the one we observe in reality. Yes, the consensus at this forum has spoken against me, but not against the definition of science that requires the knowledge of truths to be obtained and tested. Extrapolating the predictions of the ToE backwards in time and calling this science does not meet the true definition of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
You won't see the evidence for evolution, so I won't see the evidence for nuclear fission. I see a theory for evolution, but I do not see the truth for evolution that has been "obtained and tested." If elements that were not there before the unraium atom was split appear after the uranium atom was split, and these elements talk, quack, and are chemically the same as other elements that appear in nature, then most scientists see the evidence for nuclear fission beyond any reasonable doubt.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024