Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 4994 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 11 of 224 (475462)
07-16-2008 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by mike the wiz
07-11-2008 9:07 AM


Re: Theory in science
quote:
Example;
IF Creation was true, then we would expect mass devastation recorded in the earth.
We find mass devastation in the fossil record, which is REQUIRED, if creation as a theory is to be viable.
Do not misunderstand me, this is in no way proof that creation happened, but one confirmation that is vital. Many would agree, even scientists, that a flood would show millions of dead things thereafter. I don't see why such an obvious logical clarity should be thrown away simply because you personally want to claim that you own evidence on a personal basis. No, evidence is evidence, and always was and I shall stick to it's accepted definition.
Your scientific method is flawed here. You should be looking at the empirical evidence provided and then coming up with the most reasonable theory - not the other way around - you don't come up with a conclusion or a theory and then try to match the evidence to fit your theory.
It is unreasonable to state "Because there was a mass devastation we can now say that creation theory (or any part thereof) is proven".
Edited by killinghurts, : No reason given.
Edited by killinghurts, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 07-11-2008 9:07 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by mike the wiz, posted 07-23-2008 8:48 AM killinghurts has replied

killinghurts
Member (Idle past 4994 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 13 of 224 (476472)
07-24-2008 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by mike the wiz
07-23-2008 8:48 AM


Re: Theory in science
quote:
BUT - the bible is infact apriori, in that is states worldwide flood and death BEFORE human knowledge of fossils.
Firstly - it cannot be "apriori" after the event - this does not make it prophetic - it makes it an interpretation in hindsight.
Let me give you an example - Nostradamus predicted world war 3 - we can't then, after world war three happens (if it does) then say that Nostradamus was prophetic about it - unless he gives specific, reproducible, testable evidence (like a specific calculated date, time and series of events) - *anything* else is simply coincidence and/or an interpretation of what WE would like to believe - i.e a guess.
If you seriously believe the bible is prophetic please give me one prophecy that has been predicted (predicted like we predict utilising the scientific method - not some wishy washy general Nostradamus-esque "interpretation") that has then come true - I will bow down and beg for mercy.
Secondly - I'd like to introduce a bit of reason here. Perhaps I wasn't being clear in my last post.
Which do you think is more reasonable:
a) A 2000 year old script mentioned that once there was a worldwide flood that this lends evidence to suggest that we were created by a magical imaginary being - of which we can't see, touch, smell, taste or hear.
or
b) Countless fossils based on sound dating methods, direct DNA links, hundreds of years of gathering evidence and questioning and changing theories, searching for falsities and contradictions and we *sort of* know what happened, not quite everything, but we have a GOOD idea that we evolved from a common ancestor and that we change with our environment and geographical location - much like we see on a micro level *every day* right here right now - in reality.
You are correct that the theory of evolution is a theory. However it is not based not on ONE fact alone (i.e a 2000 year old script), and thus it is much more reasonable to state that we did not get majicked up by the spaghetti monstor OR any other imaginary being, and that it is more likely that we evolved.
You're thinking may be "logical" as you put it - but it is far from objective, far from lateral and far from reasonable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mike the wiz, posted 07-23-2008 8:48 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by mike the wiz, posted 07-29-2008 7:50 AM killinghurts 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