Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   scientific theories taught as factual
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 18 of 295 (440695)
12-14-2007 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by JRTjr
12-14-2007 1:45 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
jrtjr1 writes:
What really gets me is even Evolutionist will say stuff to the effect of “The impression of design is over whelming” and then proceed to try and make people believe its’ just a coincidence.
Impression of design?
Such as what?
The human eye? Piss poor design.
The inside of the human skull? Piss poor design.
The human ability to suffer depression and host of other psychological disorders? Piss poor design.
Reasons to believe writes:
Testing the Creation Model
The unique beauty of this biblical creation model is its ability to predict with accuracy advancing scientific discovery. This ability to predict is the hallmark of any reliable theory. By contrast, Darwinian evolution, chaos theory, and six-consecutive-24-hour-creation-day creationism fail to predict and instead contradict the growing body of data. This summary lists just 20 of the numerous successful predictions made by the Reasons To Believe model.
transcendent creation event
cosmic fine-tuning
fine-tuning of the earth's, solar system's, and Milky Way Galaxy's characteristics
rapidity of life's origin
lack of inorganic kerogen
extreme biomolecular complexity
Cambrian explosion
missing horizontal branches in the fossil record
placement and frequency of "transitional forms" in the fossil record
fossil record reversal
frequency and extent of mass extinctions
recovery from mass extinctions
duration of time windows for different species
frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis
frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism
speciation and extinction rates
recent origin of humanity
huge biodeposits
Genesis' perfect fit with the fossil record
molecular clock rates
Care to explain (a) how these are any kind of test for this model and (b) how much research you have done to investigate these claims?
I put money on 'not a lot.'
To get this taught in school you would have to validate it and that won't happen because it is invalid, bollocks, just plain wrong.
jrtjr1 writes:
See, it is not that I am “irrelevant”, “of no worth”, or “of no importance”;
Quite so: but the ideas you are supporting are.
jrtjr1 writes:
The fact that there is a Creator is so well established that
Is it? The reason scientific theories are taught is because they are supported by the evidence. Creationism is not.
Unless you have some new evidence and can present it here?
You also seem to forget that science does not have an socio political agenda but creationism is religion and so does.
Even your wacky US law agrees.
jrtjr1 writes:
I challenge you to look over the information I have provided.
Surely you know this has been debunked ad infinitum?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by JRTjr, posted 12-14-2007 1:45 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by JRTjr, posted 12-18-2007 8:19 AM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 29 of 295 (441596)
12-18-2007 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by JRTjr
12-18-2007 8:19 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
jrtjr1 writes:
Just because man’s eyes were not designed to your specification dos not mean they were not designed at all or that they wore poorly designed.
Yes it does: it shows that if they were designed in a 'just good enough way'. Either that or by a bad designer.
jrtjr1 writes:
Now, we know that the universe had a beginning {I.E. the Big Bang} something or Someone had to begin it.
This is where you are in error. There is no reason to jump to the conclusion that 'Someone' caused the 'begining'.
The bible saying that there was a begining is hardly a reason to conclude that that creation 'model' is a scientific model.
jrtjr1 writes:
Not only did the Bible say it first but it also gave three initial condition for the Earth {before it was made ready for live}, showed the progression of life as God added new phyla (species, or group of animals), and states that God is not continuing to Create new phyla.
Care to provide the evidence that supports this 'prediction'? By the way the first 2 are unfalsifiable and therfore invalid within science.
Btw: by saying phyla you can't mean species. Unless you lump them both in together in the ever elusive 'kind'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by JRTjr, posted 12-18-2007 8:19 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by JRTjr, posted 12-23-2007 9:35 PM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 54 of 295 (443240)
12-24-2007 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by JRTjr
12-23-2007 9:35 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
jrtjr writes:
So, let me get this strait here; the design of the human eye does not meat your specifications of what you think it should be like so it is either a “bad design” or not designed at all?
Yes. It lacks the appearance of design.
jrtjr writes:
All I have to say to this one is ”Cause and Effect’.
You are really saying more than just that: you are saying that a god type entity is the cause. This is also contradicting your own point. If cause and effect are inviolable as you posit, then any implication that the designer is out side of this process is special pleading and a logical fallcay.
jrtjr writes:
What I am saying is that every step given in the Genesis one account has been substantiated by science.
You keep asserting this but provide no evidence. What is this scientific evidence that hiterto eludes science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by JRTjr, posted 12-23-2007 9:35 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024