Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,891 Year: 4,148/9,624 Month: 1,019/974 Week: 346/286 Day: 2/65 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science Disproves Evolution
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 196 (442263)
12-20-2007 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by dwise1
12-20-2007 4:19 PM


On The Other Hand
dwise writes:
Aha! The actual ages they get doesn't really matter to them. All they want is be able to say that science is wrong. And then from there they can pick and choose what findings of science they can arbitrarily say is wrong and so can ignore. They don't really care about proving their claims right; they just want to prove science wrong.
On the otherhand, if evolutionist science can be shown to be off to the extent that billions become millions, doesn't that implicate the evo scientific methodology as being severely flawed?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by dwise1, posted 12-20-2007 4:19 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RickJB, posted 12-20-2007 5:37 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 25 by jar, posted 12-20-2007 5:40 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 26 by ringo, posted 12-20-2007 5:40 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 32 by dwise1, posted 12-20-2007 6:17 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-21-2007 4:15 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 196 (442615)
12-21-2007 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by dwise1
12-20-2007 6:17 PM


Re: On The Other Hand
Thanks for the substantial response to my message, Dwise. As I ponder the fact that creationists differ on origins relative to time and age it comes to mind that the reason evolutionists hold to a more natural and secularist view is that they believe what is taught in the schools all the way up from preschool through graduate. Biblical creationists, on the other hand including those who are subjected to the same public schooling are exposed to alternative hypothesis in the Christian circles including churches which is more in line with the Biblical model.
To summarize my point, scientists and students of science who receive information from one source tend to hold to that source of information and belief exclusively. Scientists and students of science who receive information from alternative sources along with the mainline source tend to be more informed and open to alternative study including archeological discoveries, fulfilled prophecy relative to history etc. These venues of study raise questions relative to varied age hypotheses.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by dwise1, posted 12-20-2007 6:17 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by jar, posted 12-21-2007 9:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 58 by dwise1, posted 12-21-2007 10:03 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 196 (442621)
12-21-2007 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by dwise1
12-21-2007 10:03 PM


Re: On The Other Hand
dwise writes:
But we're not talking about "fulfilled prophecy", the very existence of which is in question.
I mentioned fulfiled prophecy relative to history because this is one of the corroborating evidences Biblicalists use to argue for an intelligent designer supportive to the Biblical model.
Note that along with that I cited archeology. Natural securalistic scientists refuse to acknowledge or to falsify important discoveries and research sites which creationists like Dr Lennart Moller have done such as the Nuweiba crossing site relative to the Biblical model.
dwise writes:
We're talking about studying the natural universe and, more specifically, determining the ages of that natural natural and structures in it, including our planet.
I agree but our model includes such physical phenomena as I have cited above.
Furthermore, the question much more specifically was whether science or creationism does a better job of arriving at these dates. Even more specifically, the question you involved yourself into was why is it that the many independent scientific tests are in agreement with each other, whereas practically none of creationism's result are even remotely in agreement with each other.
As I've argued time and again, the Biblical model implies pre-flood conditions which should render modern dating methodology inaccurate. Thus if we don't know what the properties of the atmosphere were before the flood, how can we test for acurate dating? We can't so we come up with varied date hypotheses. We use what corroborating evidence we can assemble and build our hypothesis on those.
Now, it is indeed a very good idea, especially in engineering, to team together people from different disciplines, which enables the team to think outside the box during brainstorming. However, creationism would have nothing to offer and ID much less.
We believe we do have something to offer but the majority has the bully pulpit in education, the media and the mainstream science arena.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by dwise1, posted 12-21-2007 10:03 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by obvious Child, posted 12-22-2007 2:45 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 61 by sidelined, posted 12-22-2007 4:32 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 4:35 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 12-22-2007 8:19 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 64 by jar, posted 12-22-2007 10:14 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 196 (442857)
12-22-2007 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Percy
12-22-2007 8:19 AM


Re: On The Other Hand
Percy writes:
No real world evidence points to a young earth or a recent flood, and no one unaware of Genesis and only looking at the real world would ever arrive at such an idea.
You're implying that I am YEC. I'm sure you're aware that that is not the case as I have repeatedly stated.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 12-22-2007 8:19 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 12-22-2007 9:44 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 196 (442859)
12-22-2007 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by jar
12-22-2007 10:14 AM


Re: On The Other Hand
Jar writes:
Except NO ONE including you or Dr. Lennart Mller, has ever presented any evidence to support such an assertion.
That's blatantly false and you know it. When your people falsify the evidence which has been presented get back to me. Otherwise bug off.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by jar, posted 12-22-2007 10:14 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by jar, posted 12-22-2007 8:33 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 75 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2007 4:05 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 196 (442968)
12-23-2007 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Percy
12-22-2007 9:44 PM


Re: On The Other Hand
Percy writes:
That's a standard YEC position. Why would you argue that modern dating methods are inaccurate if you're not a YEC and instead think the earth is ancient? You also believe Biblical arguments belong in science threads, another standard YEC position.
What your position really is is confused!
Looking at Message 1 I'd say that dating arguments are on-topic, but Biblical arguments about prophecy are off-topic, and sophistry about supposed scientific bias and bullying in the face of overt creationist shenanigans and when over 60% of the American public thinks the world is less than 10,000 years old is not only off-topic but ludicrous.
The title says, "Science Disproves Evolution," by which the author really meant "Science Disproves an Ancient Earth." If you have scientific evidence against an ancient earth then let's hear it, but no more Bible talk, please.
1. I never said a peep about the age of the world/earth/planet in message 59 reference dating methods. My position for the whole 4 plus years at EvC has been that the age of the planet is not knowable as per the Biblical model. What my statements regarding dating referred to was evolution of animals and mankind. My position has always been that the 24 hour day was not determined/established until day five of creation when the animals and man was created. I'm surprised that by now you haven't known that to be the case regarding my hypothesis.
2. Biblical arguments only belong in science when they apply to the topic. After all certain aspects of observable archeology, history, geology, cosmology, biology etc relative to origins involve the Biblical record. EvC involves the Bible so if you don't want it involved, you have no EvC debate in science.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 12-22-2007 9:44 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 12-24-2007 7:03 AM Buzsaw has 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